טמה טמא

[talmid56]

Hi Chris,

About Tregelles' translation of Gesenius, do you have a link where I can download it?

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Talmid,

https://archive.org/details/GeseniusFHW ... ptures1860

Just click on left side to access the download PDF format.

[talmid56]

Thanks!

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Ducky, this is a continuation from where I answered your questions on page one. I found a particularly interesting passage, Psalm 121:3-4.

אַל־יִתֵּן לַמּוֹט רַגְלֶךָ אַל־יָנוּם שֹׁמְרֶךָ׃ הִנֵּה לֹא־יָנוּם וְלֹא יִישָׁן שׁוֹמֵר יִשְׂרָאֵל Notice how this is certainly no poetically motivated choice of using both negatives, it is for emphasis in verse 5, as if to confirm verse 4 which is most definitely not a command and reads subjectively while verse 5 reads objectively if one may permit the differentiation. In English I read : He will not allow your foot to be moved and He who protects you will not slumber; Look, He that protects you will most definitely not slumber nor sleep.

My observation anyway.
Kind Regards
Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi Chris,

Just to let you know that I am not ignoring you.
I'll come back on Wednesday (probably) and comment.

[ducky]

Hi Chris,

Through this week, I collected a few verses for you to "enjoy" analyzing.
And while writing this comment, and looking up at the comments above, I realize that I don't really understand your view.
Because your explanations go from here to there and backwards (at least for me).
So, if you care, can you give a short explanation of where you expect to see the לא and where do you expect to see the אל.
Because the differences and the expectations are known, and I am searching for the exception.
so I need you to sharpen them, so I would know what to search and won't make this thread too long.

[Chris Watts]

Hi Chris,

Through this week, I collected a few verses for you to "enjoy" analyzing.
And while writing this comment, and looking up at the comments above, I realize that I don't really understand your view.
Because your explanations go from here to there and backwards (at least for me).
So, if you care, can you give a short explanation of where you expect to see the לא and where do you expect to see the אל.
Because the differences and the expectations are known, and I am searching for the exception.
so I need you to sharpen them, so I would know what to search and won't make this thread too long.

Hallo Ducky,

Ok. I have gone into as much detail as possible in tackling the verses you presented me with, each within its own context. I re-read my posts and do not see any contradictions in what I have described.

Oh

,can you give a short explanation of where you expect to see the לא and where do you expect to see the אל

I don't Expect to see anything, I don't expect to predict when each adverb is about to be written, I can not read like that...sorry.

The best I can do now is to jump on the back of both Gesenius Grammar and Arnold and Choi Biblical Hebrew Syntax and summarize what I understand from their explanations and from my experience with the Hebrew text:

אַל

This adverb has a softer negation than than the one below. It does not carry the Serious Forceful commanding voice of a prohibition, except with an imperative probably. Say telling someone not to be afraid for example, is not a command. Even when one is angry one can begin with a fforceful 'Do Not' and then soften one's tone after calming down to another 'and also don't' the latter not a command but a wish, a desire from the speaker which the hearers would understand as a prohibition but will have heard it as a softer plea. This is what I see in Hebrew, but each within context.

לֹא

This adverb is used to command something with a little more force, that dominates the Hearer with a 'Do Not do that'. Context will decide how forceful, but it also negates with authority, again context will decide. It can of course be a simple 'Not' a simple negation of something.

I do not see any contradictory explanations in my posts on Page One. I actually thought Psalm 121:3-4 here on page two was a nice example, but obviously you disagree. I would like to hear why.

Edit: Just want to make it absolutely clear that I am not trying to establish that there is one rule for לא and one rule for אַל, rather very simply that there is a difference between the two ways in which these negatives are generally used, and that it is not simply a case that they are two negatives that can used inter-changeably without affecting the subtle intention of the writer.

Kindest Regards
Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi,

My point is, is that sometimes the usage between אל and לא is based on how the verse/sentence is built.
So in Levi 11:42 ends with לֹא תֹאכְלוּם כִּי שֶׁקֶץ הֵם
and in verse 43 it starts with אל and ends with לא
אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכׇל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם

And in Levi. 20:25 it comes לא again
וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּם בֵּין הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהֹרָה לַטְּמֵאָה וּבֵין הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא לַטָּהֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבָעוֹף וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר הִבְדַּלְתִּי לָכֶם לְטַמֵּא

*************************
In Jer. 6:7
גֵּר יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה לֹא תַעֲשֹׁקוּ
וְדָם נָקִי אַל תִּשְׁפְּכוּ בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה
וְאַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תֵלְכוּ לְרַע לָכֶם

It switches because of style.
Not because of any significance that the לא has over the אל or vice versa.

In Jer. 22:3
עֲשׂוּ מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה
וְהַצִּילוּ גָזוּל מִיַּד עָשׁוֹק
וְגֵר יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה אַל תֹּנוּ
אַל תַּחְמֹסוּ
וְדָם נָקִי אַל תִּשְׁפְּכוּ בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה

Here there are three אל's
The message is like in 6:7
there he says לא תעשקו
here he says לא תנו

And for תנו...
Levi 19:33 וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תוֹנוּ אֹתוֹ
Levi 25:14 וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו

Levi 19:31
אַל תִּפְנוּ אֶל הָאֹבֹת וְאֶל הַיִּדְּעֹנִים אַל תְּבַקְשׁוּ לְטׇמְאָה בָהֶם
Here it uses twice אל, inside a set of laws, in a verse that ends with the name of God.
And not to mention that the punishment for this is harsh as said in Levi. 20:6.

Also in verse 19:29 it starts with: אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ
While all of the previous verses have sequences of לא.

Ex. 23:1 starts a set of laws
לֹא תִשָּׂא שֵׁמַע שָׁוְא אַל תָּשֶׁת יָדְךָ עִם רָשָׁע לִהְיֹת עֵד חָמָס
Jussive or not jussive is the same "question" of אל vs. לא
Why even use Jussive for that?

Ex. 23:7 (I wrote that before)
מִדְּבַר שֶׁקֶר תִּרְחָק וְנָקִי וְצַדִּיק אַל תַּהֲרֹג כִּי לֹא אַצְדִּיק רָשָׁע
For me, at least as I see it, the לא should fit here.

**********
Remember how this all started.
When you said that the English translation should be different for אל and לא in Levi. 11:43.

I think that sometimes, there is "switches", and when there is, it mostly comes because of how the verse is built.
****************************************************************


Psalm 121:3-4
אַל יִתֵּן לַמּוֹט רַגְלֶךָ אַל יָנוּם שֹׁמְרֶךָ
הִנֵּה לֹא יָנוּם וְלֹא יִישָׁן שׁוֹמֵר יִשְׂרָאֵל

I don't realize how these verses relate here.
The first is a wish (therefore no problem at all).
The second is a statement (therefore no problem at all).

***********************************************************************************************

[Chris Watts]

DUCKY ASKED : Remember how this all started.
When you said that the English translation should be different for אל and לא in Levi. 11:43.

Yes you are right, this is what I asked. But notice how often I have said that context, I believe, sometimes delivers a different tone of voice. Therefore making a subtle distinction between the choice of which of the two adverbs to use.

Leviticus 11:43 אַל־תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל־הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם

2. Also, this verse begins with that preposition אַל, since it is followed by an imperfect it could be a jussive translation requiring a softer "do not' rather than the harsher and stricter 'Do Not' (לא)ְ Also bearing in mind that if we translate both negative particles within this verse as 'Do Not', we have a tautology that is rather pointless in meaning in my ears. So I decided to translate this as "You should not allow yourselves to become unclean amongst the..." then the second clause is clearly a stronger clarification/consequence = "So do not make yourselves unclean because of them and be polluted of them". The first clause becomes a sort of 'Reasoning' like you would to a child, then strengthened with a deliberate "Therefore don't do it".

Chris watts

DUCKY SAID : I think it is just a matter of style.
I would just see them both as "you shall not" (or something like that) with no difference between them.

My original post was asking/noticing that it is not always a matter of style, I never said that there were two different translations but sometimes, as I thought I had shown, but sometimes a different motivation drives the decision to choose one over the other negative.

My assumption is that you say to a child Do not be afraid is different than saying Do not steal, the former using אַל, the latter using לֹא , and while not a rigid in the mud rule, the context does certainly insinuate this, as I thought I had shown.

I am going to go through the scriptures that you quoted, I am curious to see what is there. I Will reply to them.

=====================================================================================================

Ok, have gone through most of the verses,very briefly then I do not see any contradictions with what I have been saying. I was expecting to hit issues that would challenge - but there are none.

1. Jer 6:7 - I can not find, typo here methinks.
2. Jer 22:3, It is not a command in the strictest sense, it is a plea, a command yes but in the form of a plea. That is how I hear it.
3. Lev 19:33, is clearly an emphatic command.
4. Lev 25:14, It is simply expressing the speaker's wish. They already know it is a command. Don't oppress one another.
5. Lev 19:31, don't and don't and don't...God's wishes for His people, advising them, don't do this. Or do you suppose that every time God spoke it was with Thunder, lightening and blazing fury from Heaven? I do not hear scripture like that. It never takes away the authority of God, but does change the His tone of voice, or rather, Moses's pitch and approach.
6. Ex 23:1 Do not spread a deceptive lying rumour, the command, then the tone changes to..: and do not therefore be a witness to those you know are lying.

I see no issues anywhere. It's not about grammar, it's about a living people speaking, literature is never ever devoid of emotion or feeling, one can detect when God thunders with His voice, and one can detect when God speaks with less austerity but just as much authority. The same applies to Moses and all the prophets, from Pleading to anger, from tears to threatening words. One can not imagine that the writers of scripture, when directly conveying God's messages, wrote it without conveying a sense of strict authoritative dialogue contrasted with a less frightening appeal to their inner weaker instincts.

Kindest Regards
Chris watts

EDIT: You said :

I think that sometimes, there is "switches", and when there is, it mostly comes because of how the verse is built

Any chance you could elaborate on this, after thinking about it I realised I do not really get what you mean here.

[ducky]

Hi Chris,

I think that since we can go on and on, let's stop here, until the next time we encounter another case like this.