Look at the haftora for parashas Nitzavim, in particular Yeshaiah 62:5.
This is apparently what R' Shelomo al-Qabetz is paraphrasing, as Yeshaiah
writes:
umesos chasan al kalah
yasis alayikh Elokayikh.
But look at the first part of the pasuq, "Ki yiv'al bachur besulah..."
Seems that the "al" in "umesos chasan al kalah", is intended in a literal
spacial sense. After all, the pasuq is utilizing erotic imagery.
And it would be consistent that a mequbal in Tzefat use such imagery
for a Friday night tefillah.
But what would be grossly out of place then to sing Yasis Alayikh at a
chasunah. (Too close to "hakol yode'im kallah, lamah nikhneses lechupah".)
I think you're reading way too much into this. AFAIK the verb "liv`ol" in Tanach means "to marry", "to become the husband of", and is never used in the anatomic sense that it takes in the gemara.
AFAIK the verb "liv'ol" in Tanach means "to marry", "to become
the husband of", and is never used in the anatomic sense that
it takes in the gemara.
"Never"? A good example of where it clearly *does* have that meaning would
be Devarim 24:1 - "Ki yikach ish ishah uv'alah", which Kiddushin 4b
understands as "a woman can be acquired via biah."
Most other examples are quite debatable, subject to the mindset or
sociology involved. For example, does the common phrase "beulas baal" mean
"the wife of a husband" as a legal status, or does it mean "the subject of
a master" in a sexual sense? I suspect that this question makes sense only
to modern minds who have differentiated those two concepts, but in older
days they wouldn't even understand the question. This is similar
(identical?) to asking whether "besulah" means "biological virgin" or
"unmarried girl". The basic literal meaning could easily be one while the
actual colloquial usage refers to the other.
[Disclaimer: I am quite the amateur at this stuff, and would happily listen
to anyone who wants to explain a different view.]
> AFAIK the verb "liv'ol" in Tanach means "to marry", "to become
> the husband of", and is never used in the anatomic sense that
> it takes in the gemara.
"Never"? A good example of where it clearly *does* have that meaning would be Devarim 24:1 - "Ki yikach ish ishah uv'alah", which Kiddushin 4b understands as "a woman can be acquired via biah."
I would suggest that that is drush, not pshat.
For example, does the common phrase "beulas baal" mean "the wife of a husband" as a legal status, or does it mean "the subject of a master" in a sexual sense? I suspect that this question makes sense only to modern minds who have differentiated those two concepts, but in older days they wouldn't even understand the question.
The distinction between "husband" and "master" would indeed have been blurry, but I don't think there's any sexual sense there. It would of course be assumed that there *is* normal married life going on, but it's not implied in the word.
This is similar (identical?) to asking whether "besulah" means "biological virgin" or "unmarried girl". The basic literal meaning could easily be one while the actual colloquial usage refers to the other.
An unmarried girl would be assumed to be a besulah, unless she was known not to be. But I think the opposite, in leshon Tanach, would not be "beulah" but "naarah lo besulah" or something like that.
cf the first part of the very pasuk whose second part we're discussing; "ki yiv`al bachur besulah yiv`aluch banayich". I don't think it's possible that there could be a sexual undertone in the nimshal, and therefore it seems to me there can't be one in the mashal either.
: "Never"? A good example of where it clearly *does* have that meaning would
: be Devarim 24:1 - "Ki yikach ish ishah uv'alah", which Kiddushin 4b
: understands as "a woman can be acquired via biah."
Which it has to, because "ki yiqach" refers to qiddushin in general. Thus
qedushin via kesef is learned from g"sh "qichah qichah miSdei Efron".
So, if it "uvaalah" referred to becoming a husband, the pasuq would
be repetitive.
As for our pasuq in Yeshaiyah, the middle clause is jarring. Neither
marriage nor sexual intimacy are metaphors one would mix with the
parent-child metaphor.
I am surprised I am the first to quote this contrary use of "sas al":
"Sas anokhi al imrasekha, kemotzei shalal rav." (Tehillim 119:162)
So "sas al" is a normal prepositional phrase for "rejoicing about".
It really boils down to the context provided by the reiaha of the
pasuq.