From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: What Did Judas Betray?
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:27:06 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO

To: hem@col400.col400.att.com

 HEM> Date: 17 Dec 92 23:03:15 GMT
 HEM> Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
 HEM> Message-ID: <HEM.92Dec17180315@col400.col400.att.com>
 HEM> Newsgroups: alt.messianic

 HEM> HEM> In article <141385.2B22E59E@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
 HEM> HEM> Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
 HEM> writes: HEM> To: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com >

 HEM> The point was that trying to say that Rashi in a different place
 HEM> may say that the context is betulot does not mean that he says it
 HEM> in yeshaya (which is the original argument).  In fact Rashi
 HEM> specifically says that the woman in yeshaya is not a betulah but
 HEM> is yeshaya's wife (tho others disagree).

      This is true, (of Rashi's opinion); however, it does demonstrate
      that the understanding, (at least in the one place [SofS 1:3]),
      of the Rabbis, (at least of Rashi), was that 'almaot and b'tulot
      were interchangable in understanding - at least to where Rashi
      is making the point that this is a reff. to women who were never
      engaged in sexual-intercourse.  Therefore Stern's application,
      (it would seem to me), would be to show that this aspect of the
      interchange in the meanings of one word to another, are not
      "totally" outside of Rabbinic thought, (as some would have us to
      believe).

 BC> Well, I wouldn't make an appeal in using "ha" before
 BC> almah as too much in Biblical Hebrew there.  After
 BC> all, it is often written: "Ha"Mashiach, & surely that
 BC> is spoken of in the future tense in Tanakh :-)

 HEM> The point is that ha-almah is a specific young woman just as
 HEM> ha-mashiach (THE mashiach) is a specific person whose identity

      Well sure it is! :-)  What kind of a "sign" would "A" almah
      having a baby be :-)  But THE-almot that was to be a "sign", was
      the virgin Miryam - we as Messianic's believe.  And when he says
      "THE-virgin" we believe & we hold that the Tanakh declares that
      the house of Israel was to know this sign.  {some did, some
      didn't}.  Now I'm not going to get into a lengthy dicussion in
      defending Stern's stance; but the idea of the singular & plural
      "you" had escaped me until I noticed it in his commentary.  And
      I have to conclude that the explanation of the one statement
      being for king Ahaz, and the second for all the House of Israel,
      makes perfect sense to me.  Be that as it may, this has been
      discussed back and forth for centuries.  I prefer to conclude
      that this was a super-natural "sign" given from HaShem, and
      that the "almah" was a virgin in the understanding of a maiden
      above reproach in Torah needs be.  It is obvious that there is
      "some" Rabbinic support for this conclusion, (and quite a bit
      more than Stern brought out in his commentary).  But that is the
      peshitta that we {MJ's} hold for this particular verse; and I
      consider it valid, whether you are in contention with our under-
      standing or not :-)

           Thus seeing THE sign - it was to be known; just as those
      who see THE-Messiah shall known who He is.

Baruch haba b'Shem Ad*nai! - Speedily and soon, and say - Amaine!

... 012 they heard the Voice of HaShem El*him walking in the garden...210      
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG