1.0 WORD ANALYSIS
1.1 Hebrew-Aramaic & Greek Dictionary
1.2 Full Text Hebrew/Greek Bible Gematria Database
1.3 Full Strong’s Entry for “Terephah”
1.4 Gesenius’ Lexicon Entry for “Terephah”
1.5 Full Strong’s Entry for “Tereph”
1.6 Gesenius’ Lexicon Entry for “Tereph”
1.7 Full Strong’s Entry for “Nebelah”
1.8 Gesenius’ Lexicon Entry for “Nebelah”
1.9 Encyclopedia Britannica
2.0 ARTICLE EXTRACTS
2.1 Nebelah
2.2 Terephah
2.3 Biblical Horizons Newsletter No. 8: Prey in My House
2.4 Tub Taam or A Vindication Of The Jewish Mode Of Slaughtering Animals For Food Called Shechitah
1.0 WORD ANALYSIS
1.1 Hebrew-Aramaic & Greek Dictionary[1]
2966 terephah (383c); fem. of 2964; torn animal, torn flesh:--animal torn(1), torn(4), torn by beasts(1), torn to pieces(1), torn flesh(1), what has been torn(1).
5038 nebelah (615c); from 5034b; a carcass, corpse:--body(11), carcass(10), carcasses(11), corpse(2), corpses(3), dead bodies(3), dead body(2), died a natural death(1), dies(1), natural death(1), what died(1), which dies(3).
1.2 Full Text Hebrew/Greek Bible Gematria Database[2]
Strong's Number H2966
טרפה terephah {ter-ay-faw'} from (collectively) 02964; TWOT - 827c; n f AV - torn 8, ravin 1; 9 1) that which is torn, animal torn (by beasts)
Strong’s Number H2964
טרף tereph {teh'-ref} from 02963; TWOT - 827b; n m AV - prey 18, meat 3, leaves 1, spoil 1; 23 1) prey, food, leaf 1a) prey 1b) food 1c) leaf
Strong’s Number H2963
טרף taraph {taw-raf'} a primitive root; TWOT - 827; v AV - tear 6, tear in pieces 6, ravening 3, catch 2, doubt 1, feed 1, rent in pieces 1, prey 1, ravin 1, surely 1, not translated 1, torn 1; 25 1) to tear, rend, pluck 1a) (Qal) to tear, rend 1b) (Niphal) to be torn in pieces 1c) (Poal) to be torn in pieces 1d) (Hiphil) to provide food
1.3 Full Strong’s Entry for “Terephah”[3]
Strong's H2966 – tĕrephah (Heb. טרפה)
Pronunciation: ter·ā·fä'
Part of Speech: feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology): from (collectively) H2964
TWOT Reference: 827c
Outline of Biblical Usage:
1) that which is torn, animal torn (by beasts)
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 9
AV — torn 8, ravin 1
1.4 Gesenius’ Lexicon Entry for “Terephah”
Strong's H2964 – tereph (Heb. טרף)
Pronunciation: teh'·ref
Part of Speech: masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology): from H2963
TWOT Reference: 827b
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) prey, food, leaf
a) prey
b) food
c) leaf
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 23
AV — prey 18, meat 3, leaves 1, spoil 1
1.6 Gesenius’ Lexicon Entry for “Tereph”
Strong's H5038 – nĕbelah (Heb. נבלה)
Pronunciation: neb·ā·lä'
Part of Speech: feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology): from H5034
TWOT Reference: 1286a
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) carcass, corpse
a) of humans, idols, animals
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 48
AV — carcase 36, dead body 5, dieth of itself 4, dead of itself 1, died 1, body 1
1.8 Gesenius’ Lexicon Entry for “Nebelah”
Terefah
Judaismalso spelled terefa, tref, or trefa (from Hebrew ṭaraf,“to tear”), plural terefoth, terefot, or trefot
Main
any food, food product, or utensil that, according to the Jewish dietary laws (kashruth), is not ritually clean or prepared according to law and is thus prohibited as unfit for Jewish use. Terefah is thus the antithesis of kosher (“fit”). The broad connotation of terefah derives from a more specific prohibition against eating meat that has been “torn” by a wild animal (e.g., Exodus 22:31).
2.0 ARTICLE EXTRACTS
2.1 Nebelah[7]
By:
Emil G. Hirsch, Ph.D., LL.D., Rabbi, Sinai Congregation; Professor of Rabbinical Literature and Philosophy, University of Chicago; Chicago, Ill.
Gotthard Deutsch, Ph.D., Professor of Jewish History, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Biblical expression for the carcass of an animal, and sometimes for a dead human body (I Kings xiii. 24; Isa. xxvi. 19; Ps. lxxix. 2). The Mosaic law contains a prohibition against eating, carrying, or touching the carcass of an animal (Lev. xi.; Deut. xiv. 8). By touching a carcass one becomes unclean; by carrying it one's garments also become unclean. In three passages "nebelah" (carcass) and "ṭerefah" (that which is torn) are mentioned together (Lev. xvii. 15, xxii. 8; Deut. xiv. 20). According to some of the Biblical critics this prohibition was at first limited to the priests (but comp. Lev. xxii. 8; Ezek. xliv. 31 [where it is limited to the carcasses of birds]), but later on it was, like other laws of sanctification, extended to the whole people. This would explain why Ezekiel, in that he was a priest, says of himself that he had never eaten of that which had died of itself (i. 3, iv. 14).On the other hand, it is clear that in most of the passages this prohibition is general (Lev. xi., passim; xvii. 15; Deut. xiv. 8), so that even critics of the advanced school see in Lev. xxii. 8 the interpolation of the priestly redactor who rearranged the Priestly Code after the Exile, while Ezek. iv. 14 is merely an emphatic statement that the prophet has always strictly observed the laws of purity, without reference to his character as a priest (see the commentaries of Dillmann, Baentsch, Bertholet). It is certain that this, like all other dietary laws, was followed strictly by the whole people, at any rate from Maccabean times (Dan. i. 8; II Macc. vi. 18-30; Acts x. 14, xi. 8); and even the old Judæo-Christian community observed the prohibition of nebelah (τοῦ πυικτοῦ = "strangled things," Acts xv. 20), while naturally the more advanced school of the nascent Christian Church was strictly opposed to this as to all other dietary laws (Col. ii. 16), or at best merely tolerated it (I Cor. viii. 8; Rom. xiv. 13 et seq.).
In Rabbinical Law
Talmudic exegesis explains nebelah, in contradistinction to Ṭerefah, as that which has not been killed in accordance with the laws of Sheḥiṭah. Says R. Jeshebab in the name of R. Joshua: "Whatsoever has been rendered unfit by [improper] sheḥiṭah is considered nebelah; where the sheḥiṭah was proper, though another fact had caused the thing to become unfit for eating, it is ṭerefah"; this explanation was accepted by R. Akiba (Ḥul. iv. 2).The opinion of R. Joshua seems to have led Maimonides to the following explanation of the principle of nebelah, which is accepted by most of the legal authorities: "The ṭerefah which is mentioned in the Torah [Ex. xxii. 30] is an animal torn by a wild beast or a bird torn by a bird of prey. Thou canst not say that it was torn and killed, for this would make it nebelah, as there would be no difference between the animal that died a natural death and one killed by the sword or by a lion; consequently Scripture speaks of an animal that was torn and is not dead. So thou seest that Scripture prohibited the dead animal, which is called 'nebelah,' and that which is fatally wounded, although it is not yet dead, which is called 'ṭerefah'" ("Yad," Ma'akalot Asurot, iv. 6-8; Ṭur Yoreh De'ah, 29; Yom-Ṭob Lipmann Heller, in "Tosefot Yom-Ṭob" to Ḥul. iii. 1).
Uncleanness
Maimonides gives the following presentation of the law of uncleanness: "A carcass is one of the 'fathers' [principal categories] of uncleanness." "Its flesh, if of the size of an olive, imparts uncleanness to man and to vessels by contact, and to earthen pots by being suspended within their area, although not even touching their sides" (Sifra, Lev. xi. 33). It communicates uncleanness to the garments of one who carries it. The meat of animals, both permitted and forbidden, if of the size of an olive, imparts uncleanness. The meat of clean animals that have been properly killed remains clean, although it may be unfit for eating for some other reason (e.g., being "ṭerefah"), while the meat of unclean animals remains unclean, even though the animal may have been killed according to the laws of sheḥiṭah. The blood, as a liquid, can not impart uncleanness (see 'Eduy. viii. 4), although rabbinical law has extended the prohibition to touching the blood of a carcass. The fat of the carcass does not impart uncleanness, because it is written, "and the fat of the beast that dieth of itself . . . may be used in any other use: but ye shall in no wise eat of it" (Lev. vii. 24). Hide, horns, hoofs, bones, sinews, and even flesh if it be so far putrefied that it is no longer fit to be used for food, do not possess the quality of uncleanness ("Yad," She'ar Abot ha-Ṭum'ot, i.).Other uses of nebelah, except eating, are permitted, according to the generally accepted principle of R. Abbahu. "Every prohibition of eating includes every other use, with the exception of nebelah, about which Scripture [Deut. xiv. 21] has expressly stated the contrary" (Pes. 21b). Another opinion (Sheb. vii. 3) places nebelah among those things which may not be made articles of commerce. The Talmud (Yer. Sheb. 37c) derives from this law the principle that things which are forbidden by the Mosaic law may not be made articles of commerce, while things prohibited only by the Rabbis may. This view is generally accepted in the codes ("Yad," Ma'akalot Asurot, viii. 16; Yoreh De'ah, 117, 1), and contradiction is avoided by explaining that the prohibition against dealing in forbidden things is limited to such as are exclusively used for eating and to commerce when followed as a regular vocation (ib.; see especially Ṭure Zahab ad loc.). Handling a carcass is the most despised of all occupations; therefore Rab advises R. Kahana: "Skin a carcass on the street for hire and say not I am a great man and the work is repulsive to me" (B. B. 110a; with some slight variations also Pes. 113a). In Judæo-German parlance "nebelah" applies to anti-Semites.Bibliography: Wiener, Die Jüdischen Speisegesetze, pp. 220-245, Breslau, 1895.E. G. H. D.
2.2 Terefah[8]
by:
Wilhelm Bacher, Ph.D., Professor, Jewish Theological Seminary, Budapest, Hungary.
Judah David Eisenstein, Author, New York City.
Term signifying originally the flesh of a clean animal that had been torn or mortally wounded by beasts of prey, and had been rendered thereby unfit for food. In rabbinical literature the word came to be applied to the flesh of an animal that had received a fatal injury, or suffered any one of certain diseases, or was marked by some physical abnormality, but which otherwise would be "kasher" (fit and proper as food). "Ṭerefah" in a broader sense includes also a regularly but unskilfully killed animal, in contradistinction to Nebelah, which refers to the carcass of a clean animal that has died an unnatural death or been killed irregularly (comp. Ḥul. iv. 2). Both flesh that is nebelah and flesh that is ṭerefah are forbidden as food by the Mosaic law (Lev. xxii. 8).
The Talmudic rule is that when an animal is so injured that it can not live, its flesh is terefah; hence only such injury, disease, or abnormality is involved as must cause an untimely death and affect the health of the animal at the time it is slaughtered (Ḥul. iii. 1; 42a).
2.3 Biblical Horizons Newsletter No. 8: Prey in My House[9]
by: Peter J. Leithart
November, 1989
Malachi 3:8-10 is a well-known passage dealing with the tithe. There is, however, a seldom-recognized difficulty in verse 10, where God demands the tithe "that there may be food in My house." The word translated "food" in the NASB is tereph, which elsewhere carries the connotation of "prey." The use of this word in reference to the tithe is odd, but not altogether inexplicable. The difficulty is increased when we realize that the priests, whose livelihood was largely from the tithe, were forbidden to eat anything torn (terephah, Lev. 22:8). (Lay Israelites were also forbidden to eat terephah [Ex. 22:31], but since they did not receive any portion of the tithe, this fact is irrelevant to Malachi 8:10.)
Perhaps this apparent anomaly can be resolved by distinguishing between tereph and terephah. There appears to be a subtle difference of meaning. Tereph often refers to an animal (or symbolically, to a person or a nation) that is in danger from a predator; terephah refers to the torn flesh of an animal. But this distinction is fuzzy; in Ezekiel 22:27, for example, the princes of Israel are compared to "wolves tearing the tereph," and in Nahum 2:12 the two words are used in poetic parallelism. True, the notion of violent attack sometimes retreats to the background, so that tereph sometimes means simply "food" (cf. Job 4:11; 24:5; Ps. 111:5; Prov. 31:15), while terephah always refers to something torn.
…
Torn flesh (terephah) also appears in the Book of the Covenant. Exodus 22:13 says that no restitution is required if one loses a neighbor’s animal, provided he can bring the torn flesh to prove that the animal was killed and not stolen. Jacob apparently knew something of these provisions, for he defends himself to Laban by saying that he never brought terephah to Laban, but instead bore the loss himself (Gen. 31:39). Jacob’s statement implies that he had the right to relieve himself of his obligation to pay for a lost animal by bringing the torn flesh. His kindness to Laban was shown in the fact that he did not press his rights.
As we have already noted, the Israelites were forbidden to eat terephah. In Exodus 22:31, the rationale for this prohibition is that "You shall be men of holiness to me." The torn flesh could be given to dogs. Leviticus 7:22-27, where the same prohibition is repeated, also prohibit eating of fat and blood. Significantly, these verses place the fat of sacrificial animals, fat of corpses, and fat of terephah under category of animals which are offered to the Lord (vv. 24-25). Leviticus 17:15 makes provision for cleansing after eating of a carcass (nebelah) or a terephah: The offender, whether Israelite or alien, must wash clothes and bathe and remain unclean until evening (cf. Lev. 22:4-8).
Apparently, an animal becomes unclean, and a cause of uncleanness when it dies or when it is torn to pieces. The difference between a carcass and terephah appears to lie in the manner of death: An animal might fall off a rock, and become a corpse, but it had to be torn by a predator in order to be considered terephah (cf. Ezk. 4:14). Neither was edible by the Israelites, however.”
2.4 Tub Taam or A Vindication Of The Jewish Mode Of Slaughtering Animals For Food Called Shechitah[10]
By Aaron Zebi Friedman Translated From The Hebrew By Laemlein Buttenwieser Second Edition New York Block Publishing Co., 738 Broadway 1904 Press Of Philip Cowen 489 Fifth Avenue New York StacR na The Torah also warns us not to give any man any dangerous or injurious thing by which his life can be endangered or he could be hurt. So -the Bible says (Exod. xxii. 30): "Neither shall you eat flesh that is torn of beasts in the field. Ye shall cast it to the dogs."
But in Deut. xiv. 21, the Bible admonishes us: Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself; thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it ; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien, for thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God.
In order to understand this apparent incongruity, that in Deuteronomy the Bible allows us to give forbidden meat to the stranger and alien, and in Exodus the Bible commands us to cast forbidden meat to the dogs, we must not forget that there is a great difference between Terephah and Ne- belah. By Terephah is meant an animal that has been torn or mortally wounded by a beast of prey. Such an animal dies of poison, by which the attacking animal of prey infected its system. For thus the Bible says: "And flesh in the field that is torn," that means, that has been torn or wounded by a beast of prey. Such an animal we must not even give to a Gentile, but cast it to the dogs, because it is more strictly forbidden to us to eat anything injurious to health than to eat anything unclean on merely religious grounds.
The Torah teaches us at the same time that dogs are beasts of prey which are not injured by the poison of another beast of prey, wherefore dogs may eat of an animal that has been wounded or slain by another.
But in Deuteronomy the Torah speaks of Nebelah, and not of Terephah ; and whereas there are many animals that die a natural death, and are fit for human food, therefore the Torah commands us: Ye shall not eat any animal that has died of itself, even if it is fit to be eaten, as, for instance, if during Shechitah or the act of killing it has become unfit for the use of an Israelite.
Now the meat of such an animal thou mayest give to the stranger within thy gates that he may eat it, if he chooses. But to the Israelite such meat is forbidden, as the Bible says (Deuteronomy xiv. 2, 3): "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be
See also Aben Esra, Exodus xxii., who quotes the opinion of Rabbi Moses Cohen, that God forbade us to give a Gentile anything injurious to health or dangerous to the system, because we are enjoined more strictly to abstain from eating anything injurious to health than from eating anything forbidden by the statutes of the Israelitish religion.
So the Bible forbade also the stranger to eat blood, although he is allowed to eat of an animal that died of itself. For in reference to Nebelah (an animal that died of itself) the Bible says: "To the stranger that is within thy gates thou mayest give it, that he may eat it."
But eating blood is forbidden also to the stranger, for thus it says (Lev. xvii. 10) : "And any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."
We find the reason for this in Moreh. For Maimonides writes in Moreh that blood creates very cruel inclinations in the system, which not only become inseparable from the system, but which will also be communicated to children and grandchildren.
From this we see that God desires the welfare of His creatures, that He has pity on them, and wants them to prosper and improve their minds by virtuous living...
...
What we have said until now is fully sufficient to show us that God is a merciful Father, who has compassion on His creatures, and loves all men, both rich and poor. He has given us statutes and judgments, and any one who chooses may find shelter in them, and observe and perform them, in order that he, as well as we, may enjoy the felicity of doing what is right in the eyes of the Lord.
What we have said until now is fully sufficient to show us that God is a merciful Father, who has compassion on His creatures, and loves all men, both rich and poor. He has given us statutes and judgments, and any one who chooses may find shelter in them, and observe and perform them, in order that he, as well as we, may enjoy the felicity of doing what is right in the eyes of the Lord.
…
No comments:
Post a Comment