On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Zev Sero <<a href="mailto:zev@sero.name">zev@sero.name</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Saris definitely means eunuch; when Yeshaya says "ve'al yomar hasaris<br>
hen ani etz yavesh", he doesn't mean "royal servant". The question is<br>
whether, by the time of the Megillah, the term had shifted in meaning;<br>
since traditionally royal servants were eunuchs, perhaps the term had<br>
come to be applied to all royal servants, regardless of their anatomical<br>
status.</blockquote><div><br>Do we see that the term eunuch or saris was extended to refer to a fertile, procreative royal servant? According to Wikipedia[1], "by Late Antiquity the term "eunuch" had come to be applied not
only to castrated men, but also to a wide range of men with comparable
behavior, who had "chosen to withdraw from worldly activities and thus
refused to procreate." However, I see no indication that men who did procreate were still called eunuchs.<br><br>Does "saris" have a broader implication than "eunuch"?<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
As for Haman, if saris is meant literally, perhaps he was castrated for<br>
the sake of his career after he had his children.<br></blockquote><div><br>Assuming that Haman was a saris, which I see no indication of. AFAIK, Haman != Mehuman.<br><br>This problem and suggestion are also explored at <a href="http://ohr.edu">ohr.edu</a>: [2] (from a fantastical tale of a guy that meets Mordechai in person)<br>
</div></div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><font face="Arial"><p>There is a problem with Haman being Mehuman. The
Megillah states that Mehuman was one of the "Surisei" of the King.
Actually, the commentaries say that Memuchan also was a Suris. Its
kmown that Surisim cant have children. Throughout medieval history,
monarchs have often demanded their attendants not to marry nor have
children in order to devote their whole lives to the king. How is it
that Haman had ten sons if he was a Suris of the king?"</p>
<p>I chuckled. "Perhaps he had his children before he served the king."</p>
<p>"That may be true, but Megilla states that Haman boasted he had
great wealth, many sons and then the king promoted him. Haman wouldnt
mention children as a sign of wealth or power if the king didnt want
it. Also he attained wealth by stealing the treasures of the Beit
Hamikdash. He only was able to do that if he was already working for
the king. So the great wealth had to have come after the many sons."</p></font></blockquote><div>KT,<br>Michael<br> <br><br>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch#Non-castrated_.22eunuchs.22">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch#Non-castrated_.22eunuchs.22</a><br>
</div><div>[2] <a href="http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1569">http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1569</a><br> </div>