tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post1450412173103605827..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Does Bal Yera'eh apply specifically to your dough (בְּכָל-גְּבֻלֶךָ)?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-90966380767770925262015-09-10T06:55:49.135-04:002015-09-10T06:55:49.135-04:00Indeed. Though I think that b.h. In the jastrow en...Indeed. Though I think that b.h. In the jastrow entry might mean Biblical Hebrew (though he doesn't give an example).<br />I don't think most classical commenters would go against Chazal when it comes to a halachic section, especially based on a very rare or unattested usage, compared to how gevul is used commonly in tanach. I wonder also if it would require a revocalization, which would be another barrier.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-60052499887837316342015-09-10T01:19:02.313-04:002015-09-10T01:19:02.313-04:00Indeed; Klein says that it's post-Biblical. Of...Indeed; Klein says that it's post-Biblical. Of course, all that really means is that it isn't *attested* in the Bible: for all we know it was the most common word the ancient Israelites used to refer to dough. But if it were even potentially the primary meaning, wouldn't the classic commentators have been all over this?<br /><br />I like the suggestion, though: even if it isn't the primary meaning, the potential secondary meaning adds depth to the passage.Joe in Australianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-78293452846895637772015-09-10T00:53:12.991-04:002015-09-10T00:53:12.991-04:00Biblical and Talmudic usage do not necessarily cor...Biblical and Talmudic usage do not necessarily correspond to each other.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07657373456492656411noreply@blogger.com