There are legitimate sources that talk about calling masechet "Beitza" by the name "Beiah" because the Hebrew word "beitza" can also refer to a testicle. See answers here and here. However, this change actually seems counterproductive. First, the Aramaic word "beiah" can have the same alternative meaning in Aramaic. See Chullin 93a. Second, the change seems to draw more attention to the issue. I do not see people associate the word "beitza" out of context with anatomy during learning except when talking about why the masechta is often called beiah and not beitza. It seems to create a Streisand Effect. Am I missing something here?
6
-
judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/33303/…– rosendsApr 17 at 23:09
-
@rosends I don't see how that answers it other than a passing reference to beiah vs. beia?– AvrahamApr 17 at 23:13
-
Language evolves. I would assume there was a stronger association when the custom developed. Btw, the first two links are the same.– shmoselApr 18 at 0:09
-
Thanks @shmosel. I fixed the links. It's possible that such usage was more common among the early acharonim but I'd like to see some evidence of that. The iyei Hayam and Tiferet Israel both thought there was no reason to avoid using a perfectly good biblical word for egg.– AvrahamApr 18 at 0:20
-
@Avraham I didn't say it answered it but the answer suggests that we pronounce it beiah for another reason.– rosendsApr 18 at 1:17
|
Show 1 more comment