Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 54

Wed, 18 Mar 2009

• 1. Hashavat Aveida or Lifnei Iver? (Joshua Meisner)
• 2. Re: superstition (Akiva Blum)
• 3. Re: Choshen (Simon Montagu)
• 4. Re: A Question About Davening Vo'Sikin (David E Cohen)
• 5. Re: Lashon Hora on the Dead (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 6. Re: Choshen (Micha Berger)
• 7. HASHOVAS AVEIRAH (Cantor Wolberg)
• 8. Re: Lashon Hora on the Dead (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: A Question About Davening Vo'Sikin (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: Choshen (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 11. Re: superstition (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 12. Re: HASHOVAS AVEIRAH (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: A Question About Davening Vo'Sikin (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Choshen (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Lashon Hora on the Dead (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: A Question About Davening Vo'Sikin (Allan Engel)
• 17. Re: Choshen (Yitzhak Grossman)

A poster on Areivim posted a link to an article regarding a recent psak by
R' Nissim Karelitz that "if one discovers a non-kosher cell phone and knows
who the owner is, and knows for a fact or has a reason to suspect the owner
uses the phone for prohibited access, one is not compelled to fulfill the
mitzvah of ?hashovas aveida?".  The poster attempted to extrapolate to a
general rule that there's no mitzvah to return a non-kosher object.

This is not necessarily the case.  R' Elyashiv is cited in Mishpat HaAveidah
259, M.Tz. 3:7 (cited by R' Yechezkel Feinhandler in _Hashavas Aveidah
KaHalacha_)  that if one finds a davar asur such as a garment that is not
tzanua, non-kosher food, or an admission ticket to a place that is assur, he
is still obligated to return the object.  If the ba'alim are chashudim to
use the object, he should sell it to an aku"m and return the value of the
object to the ba'alim.  However, he notes (267, M.Tz. 1) that if the
admission ticket is only usable by the original owner, he should not sell it
to an aku"m and need not return it.

It appears that the p'sak of RNK would be concordant with the psak of RYSE
if it were impossible to sell a cell phone to an aku"m (the reality of cell
phone contracts coupled with the scarcity of non-Jews in Bnei B'rak may,
indeed, make this the case), but it may not be an across-the-board rule.  I
find it interesting that both TYW's cite of RNK and RYF's cite of RYSE both
imply that one *need not* return the phone, rather than not being *allowed*
to return the phone, which would seem to imply that the concern is not one
of unadulterated lifnei iveir, but I'd be hesitant to make this sort of
diyyuk from secondhand sources.

Joshua Meisner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090318/c541b191/attachment-0001.htm>

 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

R"n Toby Katz wrote:
> I agree with RET that this sounds like something
> superstitious, as does cutting all your nails out of
> order (and also making sure to gather all your nail
> parings lest a pregnant woman step on one and miscarry)

R' Akiva Blum responded:
> That one's different. It's in the gemora. Moed Katan
> 18a, reason included.

I'm not sure what RAB meant by "that one". What is the "reason included" on that
daf which RTK didn't mention?

If he was referring to cutting the nails out of order, I did not see anything on
that daf on that topic.

If he was referring to making sure that a pregnant woman doesn't step on the cut
nails, that daf does mention that, but I didn't see anything beyond what RTK
wrote.

Akiva Miller
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I was of course referring to the 'leaving fingernails around' one. The point
being that anything that the gemorah tells us is dangerous, and how, is hard to
call superstitious, or the reason superstitious, whether the cause and affect
are clearly apparent to us or not.

Akiva

> In any case, even if there were traces of Hebrew left here and there in
> other languages, that would not help Rashi's (Chazal's) etymologies of
> "avrech" and "totafos."? In these two cases we do not see foreign languages
> retaining traces of Hebrew, but the opposite -- the Hebrew language seeming
> to contain traces of foreign languages.
>
> You can't say that in the Caspian language?they retained the original Hebrew
> word for two, "tat," since tat is not the original Hebrew word for two!? Nor
> can you say that Africi retained a trace of Hebrew in its word for two,
> since "pat" also is not the original Hebrew word for two.? And "rech" is not
> the original Hebrew word for king, so you can't find in Latin a trace of the
> original Hebrew, either. (Not in the word avrech, anyway.)

Maybe "tat" and "pat" were archaic pre-haflaga Hebrew words for "two"
which were retained in other languages, and in "totafot"? Something
like this can happen - for example the Classical Greek word for water
is "hydor", which survives in English words like "hydraulic" and
"hydrotherapy", but the Modern Greek for water is "nero".

I don't necessarily buy this, but it's not impossible.

R' Prof. Yitzchok Levine wrote that:
> I have from time to time davened with Vo'Sikin minyanim where the
> attempt was made to start Shemoneh Esrei precisely at Netz.

I used to daven with a minyan that had a chart on the amud listing the time
of sunrise to the nearest second, and the custom was to try to start
shemoneh esrei exactly then (which most of the regular ba'alei tefilah
successfully learned to be able to do "naturally," without awkward long
pauses before "Tzur Yisra'el").  I thought this level of precision a bit
strange, since the seconds are not really a "significant figure" in
calculated sunrise times.  The time of the visible sunrise can vary by close
to a minute (at the temperate latitudes) from the calculated average, since
the amount of atmospheric refraction varies with the pressure and humidity.
This is besides the fact that many of the computer programs that generate
these charts don't take the altitude of the observer and the altitude at the
horizon into consideration.  (Some posekim don't consider either, some
consider only the former, and some consider both.)

I think that the time generated by a calculation that uses the average
atmospheric refraction is best viewed as an average, meaning that one can
best "play it safe" by finish keri'as shema a minute before that and
beginning shemoneh esrei a minute after that.

In any case, it seems from the gemara that the "vasikin" were more
interested in saying kerias shema before sunrise (and still being someikh
ge'ulah li-tfilah without having to daven before sunrise) than they were
with davening shemonei esrei at the earliest possible "likhatechilah"
moment.

-- D.C.

*Emes L'Yaakov[1] <#_ftn1>(Bereishis 37:18):* I was asked by a student 
why the Torah tells the story about how Yosef was treated by his 
brothers -- isn't it lashon harah? I answered firstly that the 
prohibition of lashon harah in fact only applies to the living but 
according to the Torah it is permitted to speak lashon harah about the 
dead except for an ancient cherem (Orech Chaim 606:3). And this cherem 
only applies to slander but not to facts even if they are not flattering.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


???? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ????, ??? ??? ?? ???? 
???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???"? ???? ??? ?? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ??? 
???? ????? ??? ??? ???????? [???? ??"? ??' ??"? ?"?]. ????? ???? ??? ?? 
????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???.

> On Areivim, someone contended:
>   
>> I don't think Lashon Hara applies to the dead.
>>     

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090318/64fe7384/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090318/64fe7384/attachment-0001.vcf>

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 06:54:53AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote:
:> You can't say that in the Caspian language?they retained the original Hebrew
:> word for two, "tat," since tat is not the original Hebrew word for two! Nor
: > can you say that Africi retained a trace of Hebrew in its word for two,
: > since "pat" also is not the original Hebrew word for two. And "rech" is not
: > the original Hebrew word for king, so you can't find in Latin a trace of the
: > original Hebrew, either. (Not in the word avrech, anyway.)

: Maybe "tat" and "pat" were archaic pre-haflaga Hebrew words for "two"
: which were retained in other languages, and in "totafot"? Something
: like this can happen - for example the Classical Greek word for water
: is "hydor", which survives in English words like "hydraulic" and
: "hydrotherapy", but the Modern Greek for water is "nero".

It needn't fall out of Hebrew. One thing academia note and comment upon is
the amazingly small size of the vocabulary used in Tanakh. We know from
other ancient Hebrew texts (eg the Tel Amarnah letters), the language
actually had a far larger collection of roots that could have been used.

Why? Perhaps because the RBSO wanted the Torah to last, so He used roots
that would only appear once or twice only one necessary to make a point.
Their meanings are harder to preserve when the root doesn't appear in
many contexts. Or perhaps it's simply a formal style.

I took that gemara about Totafos along those lines. Not that the word fell
out of Hebrew, simply that it wasn't used in Tanakh.

In English, the concept of two-ness could be expressed by the word "two",
but also by "pair", or "couple", or as leveraging "di" (duo, dual) or "bi"
(bicycle) from earlier languages. If someone only knew a small subset of
English vocabulary, would he know that a "duet" is a pair or two singers?
The words don't resemble each other. However, someone who knows French
could deduce that "duet" is probably a pair in English. Or that "pair"
resembles the Spanish "par" (or Italian "paio", to some extent).

If English usually uses two, but can use "duet" or "pair", why not Hebrew
have "shtayim", but also "tat" and "pat"?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Liron wrote: We concluded then that no, there is no obligation to  
return the razor.

I have two questions. One, you say there is no "obligation" to return  
the razor. Does that imply that you "can" return the razor if you so  
desire (with the definite knowledge that is being used by a Jew to  
shave).

Second question: An impoverished old Jewish pauper who is completely  
unobservant (either out of choice or whatever) has a bag of groceries  
containing treif meat. You notice that the person lost the bag. You  
find the bag with the person's credit card (that's how you know it  
belongs to Mrs. Treif). Do you return the bag? You obviously must  
return the credit card. What would you do according to your  
understanding of halacha?

ri

 

        Emes L'Yaakov<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]-->(Bereishis 37:18): I was asked by
a student why the Torah tells the story about how Yosef was treated by
his brothers - isn't it lashon harah? I answered firstly that the
prohibition of lashon harah in fact only applies to the living but
according to the Torah it is permitted to speak lashon harah about the
dead except for an ancient cherem (Orech Chaim 606:3). And this cherem
only applies to slander but not to facts even if they are not
flattering. 
        <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->
         =======================================
        Interesting-the gemara in erchin (6a) seemingly prohibits lashon
hara on inanimate objects (from the meraglim).
        KT
        Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090318/58627377/attachment-0001.htm>

  I thought this level of precision a bit strange, since the seconds are
not really a "significant figure" in calculated sunrise times.  The time
of the visible sunrise can vary by close to a minute (at the temperate
latitudes) from the calculated average, since the amount of atmospheric
refraction varies with the pressure and humidity.
This is besides the fact that many of the computer programs that
generate these charts don't take the altitude of the observer and the
altitude at the horizon into consideration.  (Some posekim don't
consider either, some consider only the former, and some consider both.)

I think that the time generated by a calculation that uses the average
atmospheric refraction is best viewed as an average, meaning that one
can best "play it safe" by finish keri'as shema a minute before that and
beginning shemoneh esrei a minute after that.
======================================
I'd guess the underlying question is whether chazal were defining
netz(etc) based on subjective definition (e.g. if reuven has better
eyesight than shimon, does netz occur earlier for him? Do local weather
conditions change the time of netz?) or is netz really defined
objectively and  we try to approximate as best we can in each generation
based on the tools and knowledge we have.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:17:41 -0400
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:52:51AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> : Yes, Rashi says that the original language of mankind, the "safah achas",  
> : was Loshon Hakodesh.  However there is no suggestion in Rashi's words that  
> : "Clearly Rashi felt the bilbul leshonos was incomplete...."  You are making  an 
> : inference based on what you yourself believe, but there is nothing in  Rashi to 
> : support that inference.
> 
> I just meant that if Rashi believes that the pre-Hapelagah language was
> LhQ and yet the post-Hapelagah new languages have cognate words to LhQ,
> then clearly the bilbul wasn't complete. Leaving us words that weren't
> changed beyond recognition.

Your conclusion only follows if we grant the implicit, and in my view,
rather dubious, assumption that ante-Dispersion "Lashon Ha'Kodesh" /
Biblical Hebrew was a static and unchanging language.  Insofar as it
was a *living* language, it is prima facie perfectly plausible that
some words of Biblical Hebrew did not exist prior to the dispersion,
and are indeed subsequently introduced loan-words from other languages.

> And so I think it is implicit in Rashi, a statement of a conclusion I drew
> (that was the point of that post), rather than being only my own belief.

The above illustrates why I am categorically opposed to ascribing a
position to Ploni based on logic of the form:

Ploni asserts X
X implies Z
ergo Ploni believes Z

since more often than not, such logic really involves an additional,
implicit step, and is equivalent to the following:

Ploni asserts X
I assume (consciously or unconsciously) Y1, Y2, Y3 ... and
X, coupled with Y1, Y2, Y3 ..., implies Z

The various Y's are often what the mathematicians and logicians
deliciously call "non-trivial assumptions".

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:52:24 +0200
"Akiva Blum" <yda...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> I was of course referring to the 'leaving fingernails around' one. The point
> being that anything that the gemorah tells us is dangerous, and how, is hard to
> call superstitious, or the reason superstitious, whether the cause and affect
> are clearly apparent to us or not.

Rambam (in his famous responsum on katlanis - see Kesef Mishneh Isurei
Biah 21:31) comes pretty close to calling katlanis a superstition,
although his exact intention isn't entirely clear.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:04:39PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: Second question: An impoverished old Jewish pauper who is completely  
: unobservant (either out of choice or whatever) has a bag of groceries  
: containing treif meat. You notice that the person lost the bag. You  
: find the bag with the person's credit card (that's how you know it  
: belongs to Mrs. Treif). Do you return the bag? You obviously must  
: return the credit card. What would you do according to your  
: understanding of halacha?

Buy (from my own money or fundraise) an equivalent bad of kosher meat
and leave that at their door.

BALM vs BALC do at times conflict, but more often the choices are a
false dichotomy.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:48:59PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:                                                        Do local weather
: conditions change the time of [ha]netz?) or is [ha]netz really defined
: objectively and  we try to approximate as best we can in each generation
: based on the tools and knowledge we have.

My understanding is that "visible" is usually defined by the common
person, not the individual. A nearly blind person isn't allowed to
eat thrips. So, there is an objective definition.

That said, weather does influence haneitz. It changes the refraction
index of the air, and therefore the bend it gives light. (It also
changes the density gradient and therefore where the bending occurs.)

As I recently wrote to Areivim:
> When light enters the atmosphere, it bends. The same thing that makes a
> spoon that is sticking out of a glass of water look bent at the point
> where it enters the water. (It's also why the sun loses about 1/6
> its height when just at the horizon, looking like an oval. That's the
> difference between the 34' (34/60 deg) refraction at the horizon vs the
> 29' refraction at the top of the sun.)

> Every 3 degC / 5.4 degF translates to around 1.35 sec change in the
> motion of the sun at the horizon. As does every .9 kPa pressure. So,
> you're given the time of sunrise if it were 10degC = 50degF. If the
> temperature goes up to 26degC (79degF) and the air pressure is still
> sea level norm, the error would be 21 sec.

> At sunrise in Passaic [yesterday], the air temp was 36 degF, the pressure
> was 30.31". That means that the air pressure contributed 4 sec and temp
> added 10.5 sec. Total error compared to even the best formula was over
> 14 sec.

Is it subjective? Well, it's experiential rather than astronomical -- then
the sun looks like it's crossing the horizon. But it's the experience of
the typical person, not of the subject in question. I think I'll avoid
getting into a technical debate as to whether that's called "subjective".

-Micha

PS: A netz is a bird of prey (hawk [LXX, Rashi], gosshawk [Tosafos, Arukh,
Radaq], and RNS probably thinks it's some third species). I could argue
that that kind too is defined experientially rather than by zoological
taxonomy (species), but that would be too far off topic. I think you mean
haneitz, with a leading qamatz-hei, the hif'il. "The causing to sparkle"
of the sun. LHQ is qodesh; we should consider using it accurately as
something precious.

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 04:47:13PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
:> I just meant that if Rashi believes that the pre-Hapelagah language was
:> LhQ and yet the post-Hapelagah new languages have cognate words to LhQ,
:> then clearly the bilbul wasn't complete. Leaving us words that weren't
:> changed beyond recognition.

: Your conclusion only follows if we grant the implicit, and in my view,
: rather dubious, assumption that ante-Dispersion "Lashon Ha'Kodesh" /
: Biblical Hebrew was a static and unchanging language...

Not at all. Cognates require that things didn't drift too far in this
particular word, not that the words are static. After all, cognates are
often found between languages that diverged millenia ago.

I actually would agree that LhQ is not static. And in fact, I would say
that what defines it are the "devarim achadim", the unique view of the
world it imparts on its speakers -- Sapir-Worf style. (Think of what
NewSpeak was intended to accomplish in the novel 1984. Benjamin Whorf's
formulation, quoted on wikipedia: "We dissect nature along lines laid down
by our native language. The categories and types that we isolate from the
world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer
in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscope
flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds -- and this
means largely by the linguistic systems of our minds. We cut nature up,
organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely
because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way --
an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified
in the patterns of our language [...] all observers are not led by the
same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their
linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated".)

I think that's LhQ, and what didn't change from Adam in the evolution
of Tanakhi Hebrew (I won't raise controversy by discussing beyond that).
Devarim achadim. The people building the tower had a single lingua fanca
(safa achas), but it wasn't necessarily Adam's. It is the devarim by
which HQBH "romamtanu mikol halshonos".

:> And so I think it is implicit in Rashi, a statement of a conclusion I drew
:> (that was the point of that post), rather than being only my own belief.

: The above illustrates why I am categorically opposed to ascribing a
: position to Ploni based on logic of the form:
: Ploni asserts X
: X implies Z
: ergo Ploni believes Z

I agree in principal, disagree that it applies here. Complete change of
languages means that none of the words can be compared to the original.

IOW, myu middle line isn't "X implies Z", it's "X necessitates the
falsity of not-X". *Complete* change means no similarity is not due to
correlation. I fail to see where an assumption could be hiding on me.
My deduction might even be true by definition.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:43:28PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Interesting-the gemara in erchin (6a) seemingly prohibits lashon
: hara on inanimate objects (from the meraglim).

Perhaps you mean 15a? Searching for "MRG" on mechon-mamre.org turned
up 13a, 14b, 15a, (skipping margolis in 24a), and only 15a mentions LH.

It's not clear that LH applies to all objects, or is just about EY in
particular. Unless you're talking about a different mesechta. But 15a
doesn't draw a conclusion about objects in general, it says al achas
kamah vakamah LH about a person is worse.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

2009/3/17 Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu>

> I have from time to time davened with Vo'Sikin minyanim where the attempt
> was made to start Shemoneh Esrei precisely at Netz.


I asked the Gabbai why they had a time sheet, precise to the second, on the
Amud.

He replied that it was not there so that they would begin at the exact
second, rather it was to ensure that they did not accidentally begin
Shemoneh Esrei before the Neitz.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090318/6cb7c00b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:51:09 -0400
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 04:47:13PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> :> I just meant that if Rashi believes that the pre-Hapelagah language was
> :> LhQ and yet the post-Hapelagah new languages have cognate words to LhQ,
> :> then clearly the bilbul wasn't complete. Leaving us words that weren't
> :> changed beyond recognition.
> 
> : Your conclusion only follows if we grant the implicit, and in my view,
> : rather dubious, assumption that ante-Dispersion "Lashon Ha'Kodesh" /
> : Biblical Hebrew was a static and unchanging language...
> 
> Not at all. Cognates require that things didn't drift too far in this
> particular word, not that the words are static. After all, cognates are
> often found between languages that diverged millenia ago.

In your previous message, you wrote:

> Definitely not "come from other languages"! Rashi on Bereishis  1:11
> reads "'Safah achas' - leshon haqodesh."
> 
> Clearly Rashi felt the  bilbul leshonos was incomplete, leaving traces
> of similarities in some words  from the original leshon haqodesh.

So the definition of the word cognate is completely irrelevant.  Your
argument fails to prove that words in Biblical Hebrew could not have
"come from other languages", even unrelated ones, since no matter how
far apart the two languages might have been, borrowing may nevertheless
have occurred.

> I actually would agree that LhQ is not static. And in fact, I would say

[detailed explanation snipped]

I still have no idea how you think you've proved that words in Biblical
Hebrew can't have "come from other languages".

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 54
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."