Ezekiel 16:4 seems to be describing practices performed on an infant or young child. But, what practice does לֹא הֻמְלַחַתְּ refer to? Do any rabbis explain the meaning?
Asked
Active
Viewed 884 times
4
-
H3br3wHamm3r81, I've been looking at your profile and I hope you don't mind me asking: Why did you decide to ask this on Jusaism.SE instead of Hermeneutics.SE or even Christianity.SE (which would seem to be more your comfort zone)? – jake Mar 22 '13 at 21:08
-
@jake: Because I don't think either of those SE sites can answer the question, "Do any rabbis explain the meaning?" better than Judaism.SE. :) – Mar 22 '13 at 21:10
-
What I meant was, why did you want to know what rabbis say about it over whatever sources you can be provided with at Hermeneutics or Christianity? Did you think this was referring to some sort of specifically Jewish practice? – jake Mar 22 '13 at 21:12
-
2@jake: Well, Christianity.SE wasn't an option no matter what, because it's not a question one would ask there (i.e., it's not related to Christian doctrine, per se). I think it obviously refers to a Jewish practice. A Jew (Ezekiel) wrote about it, and the implication of the particular pasuk is that it was a common practice during that time. So, yes, Jewish practice indeed. I know of no Christian sources that have ever mentioned Christians practicing that. Now, I suppose I could have asked on BH.SE, but, I don't think the answers would have been as plentiful. It's kind of a judgment thing. – Mar 22 '13 at 21:18
-
1See now a related question on this verse at Hermeneutics.SE. – Dɑvïd Dec 16 '14 at 08:20
2 Answers
10
Rashi implies that the practice was to salt the infant to strengthen its flesh. (See also Malbim.)
According to Abarbanel, the salt was added in the water to strengthen the infant's body, but also (it seems) for extra hydration.
Apparently, salting newborns was an ancient practice that was also recommended by Soranus of Ephesus. From here:
Soranus recommends that the midwife sprinkle the infant with a moderate amount of "fine and powdery salt, or natron or aphronitre." All these chemicals are mildly astringent and were recommended primarily for their ability to cut through the residue of amniotic fluid, vermix, and placenta on the newborn's skin and also to make the skin less prone to develop rashes; however, astringents would also tend to make the baby's skin dry out and flake or crack. Soranus suggests mixing the salt with honey, olive oil, or the juice of barley, fenugreek, or mallow so the granules are less likely to abrade the baby's delicate skin. The emulsion is to be washed away with warm water and the process repeated a second time.
However, according to Abraham Benisch (quoting Ben-Zeev), the root "מלח" in this case does not mean "salt", but rather "swaddle" or something similar, and this is a parallelism with the next phrase "וְהָחְתֵּל לֹא חֻתָּלְתְּ". Compare to Jer. 38:11: "בְלוֹיֵ מְלָחִים" - "worn rags". (He also compares to "מַלָח" - "sailor/seafarer", but I don't understand the comparison he makes.)
jake
- 28,533
- 2
- 72
- 159
-
1Do we have any evidence of this practice in contemporary historical sources? – Double AA Mar 21 '13 at 21:52
-
3@DoubleAA, Found this and this with Google. I'll edit something into the answer. – jake Mar 21 '13 at 22:03
-
-
4@SethJ, There's no Christian theology here, just Christian exegesis (which, in the case of John Gill, is mostly based on Jewish sources). But if it really bothers you, I'll remove it. – jake Mar 22 '13 at 01:32
-
I just think, as a site devoted to answering questions based on Jewish tradition, it's unnecessary to embellish the Jewish sources with a Christian interpretation, however much it mirrors our own. – Seth J Mar 22 '13 at 03:09
-
2@SethJ, I merely cited it because it adds insight into how the practice in question was done, the same reason I cited (indirectly) Soranus of Ephesus regardless of his lack of Jewishness. [cont.] – jake Mar 22 '13 at 03:29
-
[cont.] It is my opinion that if the source helps to understand the text at hand or the understanding of other commentators of the text, then it is useful whether or not it is of Jewish origins. I did the same thing here, also from John Gill, for that reason. In this case, it is not as important to the understanding, as the source from Soranus provides more information, but I still think it adds to the answer. – jake Mar 22 '13 at 03:30
-
@SethJ, You do make a good point though. I think I will ask a question on meta about the site policy. – jake Mar 22 '13 at 03:31
-
-
I don't object to the other historical sources, if they prove accurate. My objection was purely to using an outside religious tradition that was based on other sources (which could have been used here). I just don't see what he is adding. – Seth J Mar 22 '13 at 04:00
-
@SethJ, I use whatever sources are available to enhance understanding, as I mentioned before. In this case, he is basing his comment on Alessandro Alessandri, which I cannot quote directly, as I don't read Italian. (My point being that if he would be quoting the Targum or Ibn Ezra or Radak, as he so often does, perhaps I would have just quoted the original source.) I feel he is adding to the answer here as the only source I could find that combines the reasons of cleanliness and hardening the flesh for the practice of salting infants. – jake Mar 22 '13 at 04:12
-
3
-
@DoubleAA, if a pastor is writing on a religious subject for a religious audience of adherents to his religious doctrine, then I do not feel that is an appropriate primary source for answering a Jewish question on the same subject. – Seth J Mar 22 '13 at 15:46
-
-
-
@SethJ In this particular case, I think it is especially appropriate to include this pastor's commentary, since it is more than likely that some Christians would be inclined to interpret the verse as a reference to baptism. When reading the question, in fact, I immediately suspected that as a motivation for the question. Including the pastor's remark shows that interpreting the verse as a reference to baptism is rejected even by Christians. – Fred Mar 22 '13 at 17:36
-
@Fred, that's interesting. But why would salting be a reference to Baptism? Also, it says "you weren't" so even if it's a reference, it could be interpreted in the negative, couldn't it? – Seth J Mar 22 '13 at 17:47
-
@SethJ 1.) Maybe someone would try to speculatively interpret it as washing in salt water? 2.) The pasuk is meant to be a negative depiction, which would suggest that salting is a good thing. – Fred Mar 22 '13 at 18:37
-
@SethJ, First, this particular subject is not a religious topic; it is in fact quite neutral. Second, his "Exposition of the Bible" is not targeted solely at a religious audience; it was his work as a Biblical scholar, and was intended as a scholarly work more than a religious one. (If I would have quoted his work on Christian theological doctrine, that would be different, although it may be appropriate in the context of certain other questions.) Third, I am not using it as a primary source here. It is one of several sources, although it is not unimportant, which is why I quoted it. – jake Mar 22 '13 at 19:09
-
@jake, regarding your third point, I know. I like the rest of the answer. I gave my downvote when it was one of two primary interpretations you were providing. In light of the broadened answer, I would upvote it, but I still don't like its inclusion. The Rashi is a Jewish source; the Soranus is an historical source, and the Beiur is an interesting speculative source trying to help a religious, Jewish audience understand a long since abandoned practice. All that, to me, makes the Gill source unnecessary. – Seth J Mar 22 '13 at 19:14
-
-
@jake In another context, I'd agree with Seth. As per my above comment, though, I hope you leave it in this particular answer. – Fred Mar 24 '13 at 04:27
-
@fred, et al, upon review of the history of the question (someone upvoted my answer, which is what brought it back to my attention), I stand firm in my original objection, though less offended (I don't recall if I actually was offended to begin with, but I sound like I was). I support my previous statement from March 22 '13 at 19:44 that the Gill source is unnecessary with the other embellishment from Soranus. – Seth J Sep 08 '14 at 16:24
-
@SethJ, Ok. I have finally taken out the Gill source, because I can see that it offends some of our users (including yourself). [I still maintain that John Gill's Exposition can be a valuable resource at times.] – jake Sep 08 '14 at 17:15
5
It means you weren't salted. It seems to be some sort of old tradition that somehow treating newborns with salt (externally, by rubbing, I suppose) was good for the flesh of the child.
See Rashi there. He explains that it "hardens" the flesh. Targum doesn't seem to think anything of it and "translates" it straight as salting (it's the same word in Aramaic, just slightly different form).
Mahar"i Kra explains that in other lands this was done.
Seth J
- 41,606
- 7
- 85
- 245
-
Do we have any evidence of this practice in contemporary historical sources? – Double AA Mar 21 '13 at 21:52
-
Yes, it means "you were not salted," but the verse implies that other infants were indeed salted, as well as washed with water, have their umbilicus cut, and swaddled (other verbs present in the same verse). – Mar 21 '13 at 22:04
-
@double aa what's a contemporary historical source? I seem to recall something like this that I learned recently, and I'm wondering if it might be and the section of Mas. Shabbath that discusses what you can and cannot do for a newborn. – Seth J Mar 21 '13 at 22:44
-
@SethJ I mean like Babylonian peer reviewed medical journals or something that indicates that salting a baby was a thing. If it was common in the time period, then the analogy Ezekiel makes makes sense. – Double AA Mar 21 '13 at 22:51
-
Well, if it's in the Gemara (which I have not had time to look up to confirm), is that "contemporary" enough? If not, is V. Care of the Newborn After Delivery (page 58) from Soranus contemporary enough? (With thanks to jake.) – Seth J Mar 22 '13 at 16:20
-