[Mesorah] Melo Khol Ha'aretz Kevodo

[Micha Berger via Mesorah]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:47:21AM -0500, Zev Sero via Mesorah wrote:
: On 01/19/2016 10:32 AM, Micha Berger via Mesorah wrote:
: >"Bonei" is the semichut, we shift to tzeirei not to change from "building"
: >to builder" but to add the "of" for "of Y-m".
: 
: But we only do this for the noun, not for the  verb.   "Vayhi boneh `ir."

Again, I am asserting there is no noun vs verb. You are imposing
categories that are not native to the domain. My assertion is that
philosophically, "he is Xing" and "he is an X-er" are to be considered
the same predicate.

If you believe that LhQ is a particularly G-d given / inspired means of
communication, the idea that what you think are two concepts are supposed
to be phrased in a way that would be ambiguous has to mean something.
That the ambiguity is a good thing, or more forcefully put: that they aren't
two concepts.

(Why is the non-Chassid the one here arguing for omnisignificance?)

: >Which then forces our
: >hand, when translating into a language that does separate these parts
: >of speech, to use "builder" -- "is building of Y-m / Y-m's is building"
: >makes no sense. (Although you could say that Hashem is "Y-m's 'One Who
: >is building'".)

: On the contrary, it reveals that the "boneh" in this case was always a
: noun rather than a verb, or it wouldn't have changed in smichut.

Actually: Or semichut wouldn't have meaning. But I am denying the "rather
than". I am NOT claiming that "he is buiding" is the primary meaning,
but that both meanings are primary and should really be thought of as
one-and-thesame.

It reveals that when we use a posessive we are looking at how the single
concept impacts the builder-who-is-building's relationship to a second
party rather than how the act of building itself does.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
micha at aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507