- This topic has 12 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
In Parshas Noach Chap 7 Pas’2 refers to animals two times as Ish V’ishto. Yhis is the only pasuk that does that. Other times it says zachar unekeva. What is ish v’ishto in relation to animals?
I would say that because the rest of the species were being wiped out (and the Midrash tells us that these animals had never been involved in any form of relations) and since the vast majority of animals do not mate with their offspring, for all intents and purposes each pair was a “husband and wife”.
And what is Isha el Achosa in parshas Terumah, their just borrowed terms, in my humblest opinion.
Maybe it does. Either way it’s a good Ra’ya to the Midrash. Also, it’s a good Smach that before Matan Torah being married just meant living together.
Maybe these animals stuck to their kind and they are called ish vishto.also Rashi says these seven were used for karbanos and mixed animals cannot be used.
Good ????. It does say ??? ????? with regard to humans as well – ?????????? ????-???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ????-???? ?????? ????? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? – but the appellation ??? ????? seems strange for an animal. Chizkuni makes note that with regard to birds, the Torah never uses these terms. He says that these terms apply to any being whose physical ????? ?????? is similar to a human’s. Rambam writes that these words are typical homonyms (in the sense he uses the word) – words which start off with one meaning and then are “borrowed” to mean other things. He writes (Guide 1:6):
“The two Hebrew nouns ??? and ??? were originally employed to designate the “male and female” of human beings, but were afterwards applied to the “male and female” of the other species of the animal creation. For instance, we read, “Of every clean beast you shall take for you by sevens,” ??? ????? (Gen. 7:2), in the same sense as ??? ????, “male and female.” The term ??? ????? was afterwards applied to anything designed and prepared for union with another object. Thus we read, “The five curtains shall be coupled together, one (???) to the other” (?????) (Exod. 26:3).”
Zachar Unekeiva does not connote a pair marching together, hence the usage of couples.
I always thought to say that it seems that animals before the mabul were of higher intelligence than the animals after the mabul (for example, the Nachash by the Eitz HaDaas, the issue of eating animals before the mabul, and the fact that they were meZaveg with other minim).
Therefore at this last time before the animals went into the teivah, the Torah calls them Ish VeIshto, to denote the final point when animals were on this higher level.
Maybe there was even a concept of “ish VeIsha” among animals before the mabul?
RE: homonym: a homonym is a word that sounds the same as another.
the term you want may be cognate
I agree with sam4321 these animals were going in a pair with their own species. Because many of them intermixed the Torah wanted to make it clear that they were going with their intended pair.
nitpicker (???? ?? ???) –
I know that. Which is why I wrote “in the sense he uses the word.” If you’ve read the Guide in English (ed. Friedlander) you’d know that this is the term that is used to describe such words.
Maybe is v’ishto refers the various animals that mate monogamously for life and zachar u’nikava to the rest. Though I think cognates are much more likely.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.