was read literally as is a plant in them”, but was rephrased for the “there sake of clarity. 3. HEADING As stated above, the idea that refers to the of trees has no “felling” שלכת parallel in Classical Hebrew. It has been suggested that this meaning be derived without difficulty from the meaning throw, cast’” “may ‘to (Emerton 1982:106), but the difficulty with this is that the root שלך (Hiph‘il) is never used for the of trees. On the contrary, the verbs “felling” conveying this meaning are instead: (1 Kgs 5:20; Isa 14:8), (2 כרת נפל Kgs 3:19, 25), or (Isa 9:9; 10:33). On the other hand, the usage of גדע שלך (Hiph‘il) in the sense of a tree shedding its leaves is supported by Job 15:33. I therefore would propose to take the word in the sense of שלכת of foliage”. It was understood this way not only by Symmachus and “loss the Targum, and presumably by Quinta/Theodotion, but it was also interpreted that way by scholars such as Jarchi and Kimchi, as well as by those scholars who produced Bible translations in the 16th and 17th centuries (cf. Luther, KJV, Statenvertaling) (Williamson 1997:120). The word may well be regarded a noun (cf. Quinta/Theodotion), but שלכת could also be regarded an unusual form of the infinitive construct Pi‘el.
was read literally as “there is a plant in them”, but was rephrased for the sake of clarity. 3. HEADING As stated above, the idea that שלכת refers to the “felling” of trees has no parallel in Classical Hebrew. It has been suggested that this meaning “may be derived without difficulty from the meaning ‘to throw, cast’” (Emerton 1982:106), but the difficulty with this is that the root שלך (Hiph‘il) is never used for the “felling” of trees. On the contrary, the verbs conveying this meaning are instead: כרת (1 Kgs 5:20; Isa 14:8), נפל (2 Kgs 3:19, 25), or גדע (Isa 9:9; 10:33). On the other hand, the usage of שלך (Hiph‘il) in the sense of a tree shedding its leaves is supported by Job 15:33. I therefore would propose to take the word שלכת in the sense of “loss of foliage”. It was understood this way not only by Symmachus and the Targum, and presumably by Quinta/Theodotion, but it was also interpreted that way by scholars such as Jarchi and Kimchi, as well as by those scholars who produced Bible translations in the 16th and 17th centuries (cf. Luther, KJV, Statenvertaling) (Williamson 1997:120). The word שלכת may well be regarded a noun (cf. Quinta/Theodotion), but could also be regarded an unusual form of the infinitive construct Pi‘el.
JNSL_EXAMPLE.docx