I was reading an English translation of a classic medieval Hebrew text known as ×Âגרת הקודש edited and translated by Seymour J. Cohen and published as The Holy Letter; a study in medieval Jewish sexual morality (Ktav House, NY, 1976). On Page '83 I came across this: (in the context of a discussion about the optimal time to perform intercourse, the author describes the ideal child that would come out of a proper union, at the proper time and with the proper intentions and quotes a Gemara in Tractate Berakhot 31B): לנ×Âוכנ(an alternate girsa is given as ×Âוכש
ולנחיור
Those 2 words are translated by Cohen as "(the child should be) not swarthy, not plain"
However a look at the original source (Berakhot 31B) shows a completely different set of words. In the standard Vilna Shas it is: "רב דימי ×Âמר לנצחור ולנגיחור
The Artscroll translates this as "neither pallid (white, pale) or ruddy (red)"
To further add to the confusion, Rashi on the page translates צחור as red and גיחור as white (לבן יותר מד×Âי) In ליקוטי רש"י however (Ibid) we see that Rashi says the exact opposite. In his (Rashi's) commentary on Ezekiel צחור is translated as white (לבן כמו ×Âתונות צחורות). and גיחור is translated as red (×Âדונהרבה)
can anyone make sense of this puzzle?
My gut reaction would be that it is a mistake of the publisher and the Rashis were switched. As for the author of the Iggeret Hakodesh and his choice of completely different words, I am unsure if this is a misquote or perhaps an Aramaic rendering of the original Hebrew words.
Anyone?
p.s. I looked up the word ×Âוכנand found the name of a certain species of flora called ×Âוכנמדברי. The corresponding Latin name is given as Suaeda asphaltica. "Suaed" is black in Arabic. So Cohen's translation of ×Âוכנas "swarthy" seems to be right on target but -then again- does not jive at all with the original version in Tractate Berakhot where Black is not mentioned at all (but rather ruddy and white {albinism}).
Tags: