# חדלתי גם לדרוך על סעיפי אהלך‎



## camaysar

חדלתי גם לדרוך על סעיףי אהלך אך אחר נתן בך שכבתו בלעדי 

אישך והוא היו תמרתי וגם יהיו כפרתי

Shalom to all,

This text is spoken by a man who is explaining to his arusah that he could not possibly have been the one who had conjugal relations with her the previous night, but another man must have come to her who she thought was him.

A peculiarity of this text is that some words that should end with the letter ה end with ו instead, particularly with the verb היה. I don't know why. It could not be to avoid יה, as this combination occurs elsewhere in the text, as in the next-to-last word here. Or is this an issue only with word endings, or short words (as טו for the number 15)? Has anyone come across this phenomenon before? 

I am particularly wondering about any "branches" or "shoots" implication with סעיפי, and if so, what relation do they have to a tent? This would explain לדרוך על as "treading upon" branches. But this feels like a wrong turn, in the context. The meaning, I think, has to be visiting her house, whatever the imagery may be. (Thinking out loud here.)

Bearing in mind the aim of modernizing the text in free English to clear away the archaisms (and adding explanatory/contextual material not in the text), does the following translation adequately reflect the Hebrew?

" (...since the day you told me that you are niddah) I haven't even walked through your door. It must have been someone else who slept with you instead of me, your husband. [Whoever it was,] he was obviously pretending to be me (lit: he took my place?), and [if I can find him,] he will prove my innocence."

Since she in fact lives in a house, not a tent. Thus, "I haven't even walked through your door", disregarding the "biblicism", of which there are many in this text. 

Still, I'd love to know what the imagery actually is. Any help would be much appreciated.

I hope these questions are not off-topic for this forum! I notice that the focus is on modern Hebrew, which my text certainly isn't.

Thanks so much!!


----------



## camaysar

I see I have misinterpreted the sense of "branch" for the hebrew  סעיף. 

Therefore, the meaning of לדרוך על סעיפי אהלך must be something like "to walk near the opening(s?) of your tent? Possible translation: "I've even stopped walking near the opening of your tent". 

Don't know why  סעיפי is a plural construct. 

Please excuse misplaced final peh ( סעיףי ) in main post! Not used to typing Hebrew! Or writing it. Or speaking it.


----------



## Flaminius

I don't know what it literally means but לדרוך על סעיפי אהל is a literary expression for "visit someone's place."

About the plural verb forms in the second sentence, the subject is "your husband and he."  I, however, don't know what _tmaratai_ or _kparatai_ means.  They must be used in literary sense as well.


----------



## camaysar

Thanks Flaminius,

It's good to know that  לדרוך על סעיפי אוהל is a known expression
for "visit". This is very valuable info.

I believe there is only one sentence in two clauses (the line division in the post is arbitrary), the second beginning with והוא. If the subject were plural, wouldn't תמרתי and כפרתי have to be plural as well?I believe I've seen examples in print of plural forms abbreviated without the final ם (that is, ending with י ), but they are generally followed by an abbreviation mark (I don't know the technical name for this sort of apostrophe).

This manuscript seems to use היו as both third person masculine singular, as well as plural. Here are some examples from a single page:

היו חכם להרע

ושמו היו יוחנן

כל דבריו היו שקרים

I believe תמרתי and כפרתי are first person possessives of תמורה and כפרה --- "substitution", as in the kabbalistic alphabets known as temurah ("atbash" for example, where א and ת are substituted for each other, ב and ש, etc.) and "expiation".

The text is in an archaic and as you say, literary style, so it is bound to have some surprising, not to mention obsolescent usages. But I really have not much to base this on, as I am unfortunately self-taught, and there are many lapses in my knowledge. So I truly appreciate your input! Thanks again.


----------



## camaysar

So sorry!! I have misquoted a word. It is not תמרתי but תמורתי . This is why I speak of temurah (substitute).


----------



## Flaminius

So the whole sentence should read as below:

חדלתי גם לדרוך על סעיפי אהלך אך אחר נתן בך שכבתו בלעדי אישך.
והוא היו תמורתי וגם יהיו כפרתי.​
I can now see that "he" in the second line is equivalent of "your husband" and that the speaker holds him dearly (_temurati_ and _kaparati_). Alas, I have no answer as to why _hu_ takes plural verb forms. ​


----------



## camaysar

Hi Flaminius,

Thank you for your kind attention to my question! I think I've pretty well figured it out, though there are several more stumpers in the manuscript.

The word תמורתי must surely mean "my substitute"... that is, the one who slept with the husband's betrothed (at that time, the betrothed were considered married according to law once the ketuba was written, but before the actual marriage). He slept with her "in place of" her husband. היו is meant to function as היה. This manuscript was not written by a "chakham", but was meant for popular dissemination, and has many inconsistencies, as היה is also used for the same purpose!

But he will also be (note the shift to the imperfect tense יהיה) "my expiation"... כפרתי. I believe, in the context, a better choice may have been הצדקתי ("my vindication"), as one could say that he has not actually done anything wrong. 

But maybe he feels that this has happened "because of his sins". In fact, his shame (people are gossiping about him, as they don't know the truth) forces him to leave town, and he runs away to Babylon. Perhaps that could be seen as a sort of expiatory sacrifice. 

Anyway, I am made aware of how far removed the language of the manuscript is from modern Hebrew, of which I know virtually nothing. 

Thanks again!


----------



## Flaminius

I don't think I am making a risky assumption if I say that _kapara_ is used in a similar manner that it is used in Modern Israeli Hebrew.  Today it is an appellation of endearment used from a man to a man, a woman to a woman and between a man and a woman.  I further assume, from Hebrew's predilection for parallelism, that _temura_ is also an appellation of endearment (though I am not aware of its use in today's Hebrew).


----------



## tkekte

I am also not sure as to what the sentence is supposed to say.

The word סעיף means doorstep here, I think.  "I ceased to step upon the doorstep of your tent".

If כפרה means the same thing as in Israeli Hebrew, then the sentence doesn't make sence.. Why would a woman's lover be on friendly terms with her husband?  Maybe it actually means enemy? I think it used to mean "a sacrifice" in the Tanach. Also there is another (related?) word, כופרים, which means something like "sinners". I think the word here has a negative meaning.

The word תמורה means "exchange/substite" in Israeli Hebrew. (especially in the meaning "in exchange for...") It's not used for endearment at all.

It also might help if you tell us where you got this quote from. I googled it, and the only hit is this thread.


----------



## camaysar

Very interesting. So, if we attempt to fit it into the context, we could say that all the love and endearment possessed by the husband is transferred to the bad guy, perhaps interpreting היו and יהיה in the sense of "becoming". But I don't think the context would allow for him to be addressing her directly using those terms.

In fact, the bad guy is truly, madly in love with the arusah, and does end up with the girl after the husband runs away, making the statement prophetic. Could be. Of course the text is at least 150 years old, and most likely double that.

I have tracked down another version of the passage. Here it is:

(The husband is speaking to himself after she accuses him)

 לא כך אחותי אנכי חס לזרעיה דאבא אלא אחר שבא אליך תמורתי הוא יהא כפרתי הוא יהיה לך תמורתי ואני אלך לחיים ולשלום

It sounds like, in this version, he will be glad to be rid of her! (And after all, why not??) I'm not sure of the beginning of this passage. It sounds like he may be saying G-d forbid that he bring such a woman into the family of his father. Or that no seed of his father (himself) would ever do such a thing. But this could be way off! The syntax is unfamiliar to me. דאבא looks lika an Aramaism.

Is it possible that after she did that act, she effectively "redeemed" him from the bonds of marriage, and כפרתי is used in the sense of "my redemption"... to release him from marriage with such a woman?? So after the act, the bad guy "became" his redemption?


----------



## camaysar

tkekte said:


> It also might help if you tell us where you got this quote from. I googled it, and the only hit is this thread.



Tkekte, this is a manuscript written in Lomza, Poland, in the mid-late 19th century. It is unpublished in any language, but is a representative of a long tradition going back to early medieval times. The manuscript is a late development of the tradition, and there is no English translation.

I hesitate to describe it further, as it is sensitive material, and might be offensive to some, if it isn't already!!! I surely mean no offense to anyone. I only study it because of its inherent interest. And digging into a text that has never appeared in English feels like a form of literary archaeology... very exciting!)


----------



## tkekte

camaysar said:


> Is it possible that after she did that act, she effectively "redeemed" him from the bonds of marriage, and כפרתי is used in the sense of "my redemption"... to release him from marriage with such a woman?? So after the act, the bad guy "became" his redemption?


I think that's very plausible.  You have a detective's mind.


----------



## tkekte

camaysar said:


> Or that no seed of his father (himself) would ever do such a thing.


It can't be his or his father's seed, because יה- is a feminine possessive ending, so it's either her seed, or her arms.



> But this could be way off! The syntax is unfamiliar to me. דאבא looks lika an Aramaism.


Yep. I remember glancing over an Aramaic grammar once, but I forgot what the prefix ד means.. sorry. If I remember correctly it's something like "this/the".. ? Or maybe I'm confusing it with something else.


----------



## camaysar

I believe ד in Aramaic is "of", as in פרקי דרבי אלעזר..


----------



## camaysar

tkekte said:


> It can't be his or his father's seed, because יה- is a feminine possessive ending, so it's either her seed, or her arms.
> 
> Figuring out לזרעיה דאבא would seem crucial. Hard to fit the 2 words together. Perhaps the final ה does not function as a possessive suffix, and the construct form has not been used?? Flailing here.


----------



## camaysar

Ok, here it is, located slightly differently in the present manuscript (than in the previous source):

לא אנוכי הייתי חס לזרע דאבי לעשות נבלה כזאת 

which I have translated as "It was not I. G-d forbid that the seed of my father should commit such an outrage!"


----------



## tkekte

Yep, that one is easy, but the previous one is hard to make sense of.

Are you sure the לא כך אחותי is a part of the same sentence? Maybe it's the preceding sentence's end? Because then it seems that he is speaking to his sister. "It isn't so, my sister". It can't be אחווה (brotherhood) because that doesn't fit the context.

אנכי חס לזרעיה דאבא must be a mistake. It's either זרעו (which could make it "I protect my father's seed) or זרע(י)ך ("I protect/watch over your seed for/of our father"). Difficult...

I don't think the חס means "god forbid" there, because it doesn't seem to fit the context. Rather, I think אנכי is the subject and חס is the predicate, yielding "I protect/I watch over".


----------



## camaysar

tkekte said:


> Yep, that one is easy, but the previous one is hard to make sense of.
> 
> Are you sure the לא כך אחותי is a part of the same sentence? Maybe it's the preceding sentence's end? Because then it seems that he is speaking to his sister. "It isn't so, my sister". It can't be אחווה (brotherhood) because that doesn't fit the context.
> 
> אנכי חס לזרעיה דאבא must be a mistake. It's either זרעו (which could make it "I protect my father's seed) or זרע(י)ך ("I protect/watch over your seed for/of our father"). Difficult...
> 
> I don't think the חס means "god forbid" there, because it doesn't seem to fit the context. Rather, I think אנכי is the subject and חס is the predicate, yielding "I protect/I watch over".




Hi,

Yes I'm certain it is the beginning of the sentence, as it is preceded by ויאמר לה in the manuscript version. These are 2 variants of essentially the same story, with differences major and minor. But where the events coincide, each confirms the other overall, allowing for the personal touch. This is what happens when a text is passed around in manuscript, and copied from scribe to scribe, from region to region over the course of many years, with no printed text available as a "textus receptus". Changes and additions that occur on the spur of the moment are inevitable when dealing with material like this!

At this point in the action, both texts begin with ותשב רוחו אליו because in both versions he was so stunned by her accusation that he couldn't speak for awhile. I amend my previous thought that he speaks to himself. In both versions "he recovers his breath" and he is once again able to speak to his arusah. 

In the difficult version, ותשב רוחו אליו seems to function as ויאמר לה.

In the manuscript, לא כן stands in for לא כך אחותי in the difficult text. I am fairly certain that this is our long lost expression of endearment, but at this point it is ironic, as their relationship is clearly on the rocks. About אחותי, it can also mean "sweetheart", "mate", "companion" (so Alcalay). Maybe it comes from the word's only appearance in the Tanach, spoken by Amnon, who called Tamar אחותי as he attempted to seduce her?? (Of course, she really was his (half-) sister!)

Here are the 2 texts "side by side":

Manuscript:

ותשב רוחו אליו ויאמר לה לא כן לא אנוכי הייתי חס לזרע דאבי לעשות נבלה כזאת וחלילה לי מעשות כדבר הרע הזה     

Comparison:

ותשב רוחו אליו לא כך אחותי אנכי חס לזרעיה דאבא אלא אחר שבא אליך תמורתי הוא יהא כפרתי הוא יהיה לך תמורתי ואני אלך לחיים ולשלום

How would חס fit in syntactically as "protect", followed as it is by a word preceded by ל? Though we could see "G-d forbid!" as another way of saying "G-d protect me from it!" !

I've never seen חס without וחלילה or ושלום immediately following, but if we look, the 2 parts of the expression are split in the manuscript! 

חס לזרע דאבי לעשות נבלה כזאת וחלילה לי מעשות כדבר הרע הזה  

forming a parallelism. Interesting! (Even if חלילה לי usually does fine by itself, with no preceding  -חס ו.) 

If we tentatively accept this, we are still left with the difficult version. If we say that חס לזרעיה דאבא is a concise form of the manuscript version, with לעשות נבלה כזאת (or some such sentiment) unwritten but understood, there is still לא כך אחותי אנכי. 

It should be the equivalent of לא כן לא אנוכי הייתי and I suppose it could be, but it looks strange. At least the manuscript has הייתי. But I know of no instance where הייתי is left dangling. I think the rest must follow, so maybe:

לא כן לא אנוכי הייתי חס לזרע דאבי לעשות נבלה כזאת should be something like:

"Not so! I was not made, G-d forbid, of my father's seed to commit such an outrage!" Not elegant, or literal, but the point is, הייתי must belong to לזרע דאבי. ּ

In the difficult version, is it possible that אנכי is inserted for emphasis, since it seems so disconnected from what is around it? That would result in: לא כך אחותי אנכי חס לזרעיה דאבא "(It is) not so, my dear... I, G-d forbid!...of my father's seed!" Or, interpreting כך more loosely: "Not for that, my dear, am I, G-d forbid, of my father's seed!" Sounds a bit wobbly...


----------



## tkekte

לא כך אחותי אנכי חס לזרעיה דאבא
Maybe it breaks down like this:

1. לא כך, אחותי, אנכי
I am not like that, sister (would sound better if it was לא כזה אנכי, אחותי)

2. חס לזרע דאבא
God forbid of my father's seed

Later the לעשות נבלה כזאת is simply omited, perhaps the scribe had it in mind, but forgot to write it down? And then he goes on with saying that her lover is his redemption from her and he will go on his own way with peace.


----------



## camaysar

tkekte said:


> לא כך אחותי אנכי חס לזרעיה דאבא
> Maybe it breaks down like this:
> 
> 1. לא כך, אחותי, אנכי
> I am not like that, sister (would sound better if it was לא כזה אנכי, אחותי)
> 
> 2. חס לזרע דאבא
> God forbid of my father's seed
> 
> Later the לעשות נבלה כזאת is simply omited, perhaps the scribe had it in mind, but forgot to write it down? And then he goes on with saying that her lover is his redemption from her and he will go on his own way with peace.



Hi,

Yes, it does make sense. Perhaps the disconnection of אנכי from לא כך  by אחותי was a distraction.

However, in the manuscript version: לא כן לא אנוכי הייתי חס לזרע דאבי לעשות נבלה כזאת the אנוכי is clearly not connected to לא כן not that the 2 versions must have the same meaning.

I forgot to mention ... I don't believe that לא אנוכי הייתי could be "It was not I" because the verb would have to be the third person.. היה ... an elementary point! The text says"I was", not "It was". These differences may even reflect confusion on the part of a copyist as to the meaning of what he had before him.

We agree concerning  חס לזרע דאבא
It would be like saying, after being accused of commiting a crime, "G-d forbid, a lawyer...!"  with an accompanying hand on heart gesture.  We completely agree about the absence of לעשות נבלה כזאת, as per my last post.  It may have been omitted intentionally.

Typing with mixed Hebrew and English in Word (Mac version) is a nightmare!! Words seem to move around by themselves.


----------



## tkekte

camaysar said:


> I forgot to mention ... I don't believe that לא אנוכי הייתי could be "It was not I" because the verb would have to be the third person.. היה ... an elementary point! The text says"I was", not "It was". These differences may even reflect confusion on the part of a copyist as to the meaning of what he had before him.


I think הייתי is fine, in Modern Hebrew to mean "It wasn't me" we say זה לא הייתי אני. The verb is in the first person. Except it comes before the "I", but theoretically it's possible to put it behind also. Hebrew syntax is pretty flexible. And we should remember that Hebrew most likely wasn't the scribe's first language.


----------



## camaysar

tkekte said:


> I think הייתי is fine, in Modern Hebrew to mean "It wasn't me" we say זה לא הייתי אני. The verb is in the first person. Except it comes before the "I", but theoretically it's possible to put it behind also. Hebrew syntax is pretty flexible. And we should remember that Hebrew most likely wasn't the scribe's first language.



Yes, I understand. Of course your sample sentence contains the word זה, and so it could be seen as "I wasn't it (the one)".With
לא אנוכי הייתי I suppose the זה could be understood. Could you say לא הייתי אני without the זה in Modern Hebrew? But as you say, some flexibility must be allowed for, and especially since you are entirely correct that the scribe's first language was not Hebrew, but Yiddish/Polish.


----------



## maxl

ותשב רוחו אליו ויאמר לה: לא כן. לא אנוכי הייתי. חס לזרע דאבי לעשות נבלה כזאת וחלילה לי מעשות כדבר הרע הזה     

I added the punctuation reflecting my understanding of the text, and here is my translation:
'He regained his conscience/spirits and said to her: Not so. It wasn't me. Far be it from my father's seed (sc. from me) that I should commit such an  outrage and far be it from me that I should do such a bad deed.' 

ותשב רוחו אליו לא כך אחותי אנכי חס לזרעיה דאבא אלא אחר שבא אליך תמורתי הוא יהא כפרתי הוא יהיה לך תמורתי ואני אלך לחיים ולשלום
This one is clearly corrupt, reflecting misunderstanding of the text on the part of the copyist. Let's give it a try nevertheless, without trying to emend too much:
'He regained his conscience / spirits (and said):  Not so my sister.  I pity my father's seed (sc. you!)., But since he came to you instead of me, he will be my expiation, he will be my substitution (sc. will die), while I'll  go on to live and prosper.'


----------



## camaysar

maxl said:


> ותשב רוחו אליו ויאמר לה: לא כן. לא אנוכי הייתי. חס לזרע דאבי לעשות נבלה כזאת וחלילה לי מעשות כדבר הרע הזה
> 
> I added the punctuation reflecting my understanding of the text, and here is my translation:
> 'He regained his conscience/spirits and said to her: Not so. It wasn't me. Far be it from my father's seed (sc. from me) that I should commit such an outrage and far be it from me that I should do such a bad deed.'
> 
> ותשב רוחו אליו לא כך אחותי אנכי חס לזרעיה דאבא אלא אחר שבא אליך תמורתי הוא יהא כפרתי הוא יהיה לך תמורתי ואני אלך לחיים ולשלום
> This one is clearly corrupt, reflecting misunderstanding of the text on the part of the copyist. Let's give it a try nevertheless, without trying to emend too much:
> 'He regained his conscience / spirits (and said): Not so my sister. I pity my father's seed (sc. you!)., But since he came to you instead of me, he will be my expiation, he will be my substitution (sc. will die), while I'll go on to live and prosper.'



Thanks for another great job, Maxl! Interestingly, your translation of the first version confirms my earliest attempt at the translation (which I didn't post). But that posed fewer problems, as you have noted.

 As for the second, I would ask you regarding:

"I pity my father's seed* (sc. you!)*"I guess this is because he called her "my sister"? So the copyist, in a distracted moment, misunderstood and identified her with his (their) father's seed?

If so, this clearly should be emended to conform with the first version. There's no reason to drag incest into this already sordid story.

Also, in the second, *"he will be my substitution (sc. will die)". *This might be because according to Vayikra 18 the bad guy did, and the husband would have, had he slept with his arusah, commit a capital offense, as the arusah was in fact niddah at the time. Of course the bad guy's crime was more serious. Thus the 2 versions may involve a change of interpretation from a substitute in bed and then cohabitation, if not marriage (after the husband flees), to a substitute for execution. So אני אלך לחיים ולשלום was added.

The arusah, by the way, was later tried before the Sanhedrin and was exonerated... a clear case of מתעסק... committing a sin due to the fact that the sin involved a thing you thought was something else (the arusah thought the bad guy was her husband... go figure!)

Thanks so much, you have been a great help!


----------



## maxl

camaysar said:


> As for the second, I would ask you regarding:
> 
> "I pity my father's seed* (sc. you!)*"I guess this is because he called her "my sister"? So the copyist, in a distracted moment, misunderstood and identified her with his (their) father's seed?
> ...
> Also, in the second, *"he will be my substitution (sc. will die)". *This might be because according to Vayikra 18 the bad guy did, and the husband would have, had he slept with his arusah, commit a capital offense, as the arusah was in fact niddah at the time. Of course the bad guy's crime was more serious. Thus the 2 versions may involve a change of interpretation from a substitute in bed and then cohabitation, if not marriage (after the husband flees), to a substitute for execution. So אני אלך לחיים ולשלום was added.


To the question in the first paragraph, the answer is yes.
As to the hypotheses raised in the second paragraph, I do not think the last words were added. The whole phrase is taken, almost verbatim, from the Seder Kapparoth:
זה חליפתי זה תמורתי זה כפרתי, זה התרנגול ילך למיתה, ואני אכנס ואלך לחיים טובים ארוכים ולשלום".


----------



## camaysar

maxl said:


> The whole phrase is taken, almost verbatim, from the Seder Kapparoth:
> זה חליפתי זה תמורתי זה כפרתי, זה התרנגול ילך למיתה, ואני אכנס ואלך לחיים טובים ארוכים ולשלום".



Yes, I see. The whole key is the kapparah connection. Even in the first ("uncorrupted") version, a few lines down from the text quoted involving "far be it from my father's seed..." we find (as quoted earlier in the thread):

והוא היו תמורתי וגם הוא יהיו כפרתי

So this must certainly be an allusion to kapparah as well, with the implication that the bad guy would die carrying the sin, as the rooster, instead of the husband. Both versions simply state that the bad guy served as an (unwittinג) expiatory sacrifice. But the second version carried the kapparah allusion further. In other words, there is no progression of ideas, merely a fuller form of the same idea. The ואני אלך לחיים ולשלום was indeed added, but not to change the idea, just to carry the same idea further. 

So the irony of the situation is that the bad guy purposely made himself the "substitute" of the husband, in the mundane sense. But in the husband's eyes, he brought sin and death to himself, and life to the husband. Fascinating!

This also, more or less, accords with the idea that the bad guy will be found out, and thus expiate (in the sense of proving guiltless) the husband.

By the way, it is common in this manuscript for paraphrases of rabbinic and biblical texts to be put into the mouths of characters, setting them in new contexts, which gives even more weight to your interpretation.

Thanks for taking such a lively interest, Maxl.


----------

