If one accepts that the rule is that each person has to keep their own, then that explains their reaction to the poor man -- they have, he doesn't, they have to keep the status quo.
Interesting. I hadn't heard that interpretation before. Thanks.
I don't think I've ever heard am ha-aretz translated as "peasant" before. In my experience it's usually more negative (as you said) -- unlearned, simpleton, ignoramus, etc. It literally means "person of the land", so "peasant" or "farmer" isn't wrong in that regard, but when it's used to contrast people unlearned in torah with scholars, it feels a little funny. I guess that's what happens when idiomatic usage replaces literal meaning. (I am not endorsing any of these negative over-simplifications, just repeating what I've heard of how the term is used.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-09 01:50 pm (UTC)Interesting. I hadn't heard that interpretation before. Thanks.
I don't think I've ever heard am ha-aretz translated as "peasant" before. In my experience it's usually more negative (as you said) -- unlearned, simpleton, ignoramus, etc. It literally means "person of the land", so "peasant" or "farmer" isn't wrong in that regard, but when it's used to contrast people unlearned in torah with scholars, it feels a little funny. I guess that's what happens when idiomatic usage replaces literal meaning. (I am not endorsing any of these negative over-simplifications, just repeating what I've heard of how the term is used.)