Timeline for Why does the Chumash have to explain what "thirst" means?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 10, 2015 at 0:00 | vote | accept | rosends | ||
| Aug 9, 2015 at 16:23 | answer | added | sabbahillel | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 15:10 | comment | added | mevaqesh | It doesnt need to reference a particular case of polluted water, it just adds a couple extra words to keep the passuk in perspective. | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 15:08 | comment | added | mevaqesh | Perhaps I wasnt clear. To reiterate, thirst could be a result of lack of water or unfit water. The verse clarifies וְצִמָּאוֹן as being the former kind; not the latter by saying אֲשֶׁר אֵין מָיִם. | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 15:05 | comment | added | mevaqesh | thirst were referenced. See also judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/18799/… | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 15:05 | comment | added | rosends | if the end of the pasuk explains how water was brought about when there was none, then the reference to a lack is implicit. Is this to distinguish it from the incident where bitter water was turned sweet? | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 15:03 | comment | added | mevaqesh | From a stylistic purpose it doesn't seem difficult (note: it seems appropriate to quote the original Hebrew, as the discussion centers around the exact wording). The verse culminates with reference to the miracle of water from the stone. To do so, it must give context to the thirst that caused it. The thirst could have been caused by either lack of water, or polluted water. If the latter, then the miracle wouldn't directly address the problem. Thus, in context, nothing really seems superfluous. Furthermore, even w/o the end of the verse, it could still clarify which of the two forms of... | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 14:17 | history | asked | rosends | CC BY-SA 3.0 |