From: krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Re: Rashi's quote (was Re: Almah - Betulah)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL
	<HEM.93Jan13134949@col400.att.com>
	<LJMORLY.93Jan14105051@polaris.utu.fi>
	<KRULWICH.93Jan19160058@zowie.ils.nwu.edu>
	<LJMORLY.93Jan21113710@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:23:43 GMT



Someone (Gedalia) wrote about Rashi's comment on Is 7:14:

> > > > This does not say that the young woman was a virgin, but that she was
> > > > barren.  A virgin is capable of giving birth as soon as she marries.
> > > > Rashi (and the others) are saying that the miracle was a young woman
> > > > who was ***INCAPABLE OF GIVING BIRTH*** as indeed were Sarah, and
> > > > Rivkah (and probably Rachel).  This does not specify that she was a
> > > > virgin.

Laura replied:

> > > Not so. When you look at the original text, you see that it clearly uses
> > > the word 'almah' to mean 'virgin' -- ALMAH HAITA. The end of the
> > > sentence gives us the meaning of 'almah'; there's no mention about being
> > > barren or anything like that. Check yourself.

I then posted a translation of Rashi's comment:

> > Look, this is getting silly.  Rashi's comment is "eina re'uya li'valed,"
> > which means "is not capable of giving birth," just like Hillel Markowitz
> > said.

Laura now replies:

> Look yourself... You aren't taking the *whole* sentence as it is. How 
> would you translate "veyesh potrin sheze haot shealmah haita ve'eina 
> reuyah levaled" ? There is no mention about being barren ! 

Are you even reading the posts you're responding to?

I said clearly above that "eina re'uya livaled" means "is not capable of
giving birth."  According to Webster's, barren means "1: not reproducing: as
1a: incapable of producing offspring," which is exactly what Rashi said.
That's why Hillel used the word "barren."

Now, for some reason my translation above didn't count as "taking the whole
sentence as it is," so here we go:

veyesh potrin			and there are those who interpret
				[the "sign" that is mentioned in Is.]
she'zeh ha'os			that this is the sign 
				["os" is the Ashkenazic pronounciation]
she'alma hi'sa			that she was an "alma"
v'eina re'uya li'valed		and was not capable of giving birth

What were Hillel and I missing by not looking at the whole verse?  The point
is that Rashi discusses the alma as being incapable of giving birth.  Not that
she was a virgin, which is how you originally mistranslated it.


I then went on to show that the Torah frequently describes women who are NOT
virgins but are simply incapable of giving birth using the same phrasiology as
Rashi.  The point is that the phrase that Rashi uses doesn't in any way refer
to virginity, but rather to barrenness.

> > As proof that this means being barren, see Bereshis 16:1, in which Sarah
> > (then Sarai) is referred to as "lo yalda lo," she hadn't given birth for
> > him (Avraham).  Obviously Sarah was not a virgin, and the Torah is not
> > saying that she hadn't had relations with Avraham, rather that she hadn't
> > had a child.

> > This is the meaning of "yalda," which is the same as "li'valed," to give
> > birth.  (The same use of "yalda" is found in bereshis 30:1).

> > So we see that Rashi was saying that the alma in Is 7:14 would be
> > incapable of giving birth, nothing to do with marital relations.  Nuff
> > said.


So now, if Laura questions my translation, she could say so and why.  Instead
she throws in more silliness out of the blue:

> So we see that Rashi is using the word 'almah' in it's original meaning,
> 'virgin'. Nuff said ?

I'm sorry, but your reasoning escapes me.  This looks like yet another case of
"proof by forceful assertion."

Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
krulwich@ils.nwu.edu