Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>
>>I'll have to look this up and get the details right, but this reminds me
>>of a distinction made in the Talmud regarding writing Torah, Mezuzah,
>>and phylactery scrolls. They speak of three kinds of parchment: g'vil,
>>klaf, and duchsutus (I think). One is unsplit, one is split and is the
>>thick (flesh?) side, and one is split and is the other side. And they
>>discuss which can be used to write which article, and on which side each
>>flavor of hide is to be written, etc etc...
>>
>>
>
>That third one doesn't sound like an Aramaic word ... do let me know the
>reference! (Maybe I can remember to look in Jastrow.)
>

Well, first of all I got the third one wrong (I was missing an s, it's
duchsustus), and second of all, you're right, it doesn't sound Aramaic.
Sounds like a Greek borrowing to me. I did some searching, and I see
some stuff discussed in tractate Shabbat, p. 79, and Menachot p. 31a.
Here's a source from the shulchan aruch harav (a book by a prior
Lubavitcher Rebbe) that discusses the matter, and incidentally talks
about the etymology of the word, claiming that "Duch" is Aramaic for
"place" and "sustus" is Greek for "flesh" (gvil is unsplit, klaf is the
outer layer when split, since it was "peeled" (Q.L.P) from the inner
part, and duchsustus is the inner layer, as explained. Klaf is written
on the inner side, Duchsustus on the outer side, and gvil on the inner
side as well, which I know doesn't seem to make sense). Aha! At
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t01/t0116.htm there is an English
version of this, which translates duchsustus as "double vellum" and
glosses it in Greek as δο-ξέστος which probably makes more sense than
the Aramaic/Greek theory. sacred-texts.com doesn't have the Menachot
text; it lacks that part of the Talmud.

Well, good luck with it...


~mark