Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 76

Mon, 11 May 2015

• 1. missing years in Hebre calendar (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: halaqah (Simon Montagu)
• 3. He is my G-d (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: missing years in Hebre calendar (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. missing years in Hebrew Calendar (Joseph Kaplan)
• 6. Re: missing years in Hebre calendar (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: missing years in Hebrew calendar (Micha Berger)
• 8. Tachanun on Pesach Sheni (was Meron Live) (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Davening in a Large or Small Shul (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: He is my G-d (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: He is my G-d (Simon Montagu)
• 12. Re: halaqah (Herbert Basser)

<<I think this is tragic.  Rather than allow the blasphemous thought that
the current vogue in scholarly circles might be wrong cross their minds,
they feel forced to conclude that Chazal perpetrated multiple frauds and
told multiple lies.  The inferiority complex many Modern Orthodox Jews have
regarding secular scholarship is beyond tragic.>>

I don't see how you can call this "blasphemous" R.  Schwab  once suggested
that Chazal purposely changed the facts for a good reason. While he later
retracted it would be hard to call his original opinion "blasphemous" .
Furthermore several current Orthodox rabbis such as R. Leibtag do accept
the secular dating.

In any case the TABC article makes the clear point that Chazal had a
tendency to conflate figures in Tanach. Some examples

1) Probably the most famous is Pinchas=Eliyahu
As a curios it makes Eliyahu some 700 years old when he runs in front of
Achav's chariot.
It gives a different meaning to Achav's accusations against Eliyahu when
Eliyahu actually worked together with Moshe Rabbenu.

Besiades the fact that Eliyahu was from Gilad and worked in the northern
kingdom it leaves the halachic question whether a cohen gadol can resign
and even leave the land of Israel for various tasks. It is clear from
Tanach that Eli and other were the high priest in later generations

2)  Ezta = Malachi  because both dealt with the problem of foreign wives

3) Nechemia = Zerubavel
R. Yaakov Embden already points out that both are mentioned in the same
pasuk

4) Daniel = Hatach = Sashvezer
Ibn Ezra already doesnt accept this

5) Koresh= Daryavush=Artachasta
This is part of the missing years controversy. Note that there are several
ancient Persian inscriptions that list them as separate kings
Note that Ibn Ezra identifies Achashverosh as Artachashasta

6)  Conflates Kaleb ben Chetron married to Efrat
with Kalen ben Yefuneh married to Miriam
Ibn Ezra disagrees and also see the Gra

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150511/a80b365e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Herbert Basser via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

>  A recent post claims the Islamic "opsherin" was called "halaqah". What
> is the evidence for this claim? The only meaning of arabic "halaqah" I know
> is "learning circle".
>

Disclaimer: my knowledge of Arabic doesn't go much beyond being able to
look up words in the dictionary, but from doing that the root h-l-q seems
to mean both "shave", "form a circle" and "round off". This makes sense to
me: after all, "lehakkif" in Biblical Hebrew has the same semantic range.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150511/fa7dc1f8/attachment-0001.htm>

From  Today's Hakhel email bulletin.

Hakhel Note: The following is excerpted from Rav 
Schwab on Prayer, and was related by Rav Schwab 
at a Shiur he gave on Tefillah: I heard a story 
from Rav Yosef Breuer, Shlita, which he told 
about his father, my Rebbe, Rav Shlomo Zalman 
(Solomon) Breuer.  The elder Rav Breuer was a 
very good friend of Rav Shimon Sofer, the Rav of 
Cracow, a brother of the Ksav Sofer, and a son of 
the Chasam Sofer.  Once when the two friends met, 
Rav Shimon Sofer asked Rav Breuer to tell him a 
short ?vort" from his father-in-law, Rav Shamshon 
R. Hirsch.  Upon which, Rav Breuer told him that 
Rav Hirsch would point out that while Adon Olam 
described the unfathomable eternity and 
omnipotence of Hashem, it nevertheless makes a 
reference to Him in a very personal way--VeHu 
Kaili, He is my G-d.  Each person in his Tefillah 
says: I have a personal relationship with 
HaKadosh Baruch HU, He is my personal 
G-d.  Therefore, whenever a person says the word 
Ado--i, my Master, no matter how small he thinks 
he is, he is averring that he is in direct 
contact with Hashem.  This thought is in the 
introduction to any individual's Iyun Tefillah, 
concentration on Prayer. There is nothing 
mystical or supernatural about it.  It should be 
the most natural thing in the world.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150511/f6340c0f/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> In any case the TABC article makes the clear point that
> Chazal had a tendency to conflate figures in Tanach. Some
> examples
> 1) Probably the most famous is Pinchas=Eliyahu

I rarely, if ever, come across the word "conflate", except here on Avodah.
When it is used here, it seems to be pejorative, indicating that someone
confused or merged two things that really ought to stay distinct.

RET, is that what you mean here? Do you feel that it was wrong for Chazal to associate Pinchas and Eliyahu in the way that they did?

Akiva Miller
KennethGMil...@juno.com



____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5550b1061639931057a29st01vuc

On 5/9/2015 2:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:

> The student newspaper of the Torah Academy of Bergen County had a 

> series of articles on the missing years in the Jewish calendar

> 

> http://www.tabc.org/student-publications/kol-torah/index.aspx   - see 

> achrei mot-kedoshim for the 3rd (final) article

> 

There were (so far) two responses:

"I think this is tragic.  Rather than allow the blasphemous thought that the
current vogue in scholarly circles might be wrong cross their minds, they
feel forced to conclude that Chazal perpetrated multiple frauds and told
multiple lies.  The inferiority complex many Modern Orthodox Jews have
regarding secular scholarship is beyond tragic."

"I cannot believe TABC allowed this to be published as is. /Shreklach!/"

 

When I read this when it came out I remember thinking: what a refreshing
concept. Letting students use the educational tools they have been given to
think on their own and then to publish the results which (to my extremely
non-expert eyes) appears to be a nice bit of research and analysis - whether
correct or not.

Joseph 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150511/323be904/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/11/2015 4:19 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> <<I think this is tragic.  Rather than allow the blasphemous thought 
> that the current vogue in scholarly circles might be wrong cross their 
> minds, they feel forced to conclude that Chazal perpetrated multiple 
> frauds and told multiple lies. The inferiority complex many Modern 
> Orthodox Jews have regarding secular scholarship is beyond tragic.>>
>
> I don't see how you can call this "blasphemous" R.  Schwab  once 
> suggested that Chazal purposely changed the facts for a good reason. 
> While he later retracted it would be hard to call his original opinion 
> "blasphemous" . Furthermore several current Orthodox rabbis such as R. 
> Leibtag do accept the secular dating.

I didn't call it blasphemous.  I referred to doubting secular 
scholarship as blasphemy, tongue in cheek, because that seems to be the 
way it's viewed by some of the secular thinking Modern Orthodox.  R' 
Schwab once wrote a thought experiment, which was one huge hava amina.  
What if, he said, we were faced with absolute proof that the 
historiography of Chazal was wrong?  And he gave an idea.  He was 
horrified by the way in which the secular thinking Modern Orthodox 
misread what he wrote as an actual position, opposing the veracity of 
Chazal, and wrote, not a retraction, but a clarification that he had 
*never* espoused the position that was being attributed to him.

If R' Leibtag accepts the secular dating, then my comments about the 
tragedy of Modern Orthodox Jews bowing to the modern idol of secular 
scholarship apply there as well.

> In any case the TABC article makes the clear point that Chazal had a 
> tendency to conflate figures in Tanach. Some examples
>
> 1) Probably the most famous is Pinchas=Eliyahu
> As a curios it makes Eliyahu some 700 years old when he runs in front 
> of Achav's chariot.
> It gives a different meaning to Achav's accusations against Eliyahu 
> when Eliyahu actually worked together with Moshe Rabbenu.

Wrong again.  There's no historiography going on here.  No chronological 
framework of any kind.  It's Midrash.  Like Moshe Rabbenu jumping 10 
amot into the air when fighting Og.  Like Pharaoh's daughter having a 
stretchy, Fantastic Four kind of arm. Midrashim are all true.  They 
aren't all true in the literal sense. Pinchas was not literally Aharon's 
grandson Pinchas ben Elazar. That's quite different from throwing away 
the entirety of Chazal's historiography, which is internally consistent 
all the way through, and which *Chazal clearly believed to be literally 
true*.

If you want to say they were wrong, that they were ignorant of the 
facts, go ahead and do so.  But please, don't play games by imagining 
that they intentionally fudged the facts.

> Besiades the fact that Eliyahu was from Gilad and worked in the 
> northern kingdom it leaves the halachic question whether a cohen gadol 
> can resign and even leave the land of Israel for various tasks. It is 
> clear from Tanach that Eli and other were the high priest in later 
> generations

Again, he wasn't Kohen Gadol.  No one holds that he was.  Let me try and 
explain a little more about Midrash.  Chazal bring Midrashim that 
contradict one another.  For example, there's a Midrash that says Esther 
never slept with Achashveirosh.  That Hashem sent a mal'ach that took 
her place.  That conflicts with "Esther karka hayta", as well as with 
the Midrash that Darius the Persian was Esther's son.  None of this is 
problematic.  Because the truth of Midrashim is not in their concretes.  
Like analogies, Midrashim are abstractions which are anchored with 
concretes, but are not defined by those concretes.

> 2)  Ezta = Malachi  because both dealt with the problem of foreign wives

And maybe Ezra was Malachi.  And maybe he wasn't.  I don't see much of a 
nafka mina either way.  Do you?

> 3) Nechemia = Zerubavel
> R. Yaakov Embden already points out that both are mentioned in the 
> same pasuk

Ditto.  Not one single example you're bringing has anything to do with a 
massive chronological framework that Chazal clearly knew to be the way 
things happened.  Megillat Esther took place *before* Bayit Sheni was 
built, and not after.  Baruch ben Neriah was the talmid of Yirmiyahu and 
the rav of Ezra, and if you throw that away, you literally snap the 
chain of tradition from Sinai, rendering all of Judaism stuff and nonsense.

> 4) Daniel = Hatach = Sashvezer
> Ibn Ezra already doesnt accept this

Again, l'mai nafka mina?

> 5) Koresh= Daryavush=Artachasta
> This is part of the missing years controversy. Note that there are 
> several ancient Persian inscriptions that list them as separate kings
> Note that Ibn Ezra identifies Achashverosh as Artachashasta

It's not part of the missing years anything.  You need to read what 
Chazal say about that inside.  As far as Achashveirosh being 
Artachshasta, Chazal say Artaxerxes was a throne name.  And in fact, 
Greek sources say that both Artaxerxes II and III adopted it as a throne 
name.  Furthermore, the Septuagint version of Esther refers to the king 
as Artaxerxes, so saying that Ahasuerus is Artaxerxes is a truism that 
has nothing to do with chronology.

> 6)  Conflates Kaleb ben Chetron married to Efrat
> with Kalen ben Yefuneh married to Miriam
> Ibn Ezra disagrees and also see the Gra

I'll go further.  R' Moshe Eisenmann's Divrei HaYamim for Artscroll (one 
of the few books in the Artscroll Tanakh series which I consider to be 
of inestimable value) has an entire section on the Kalevs.  I highly 
recommend it.  But again, Midrash is Midrash, and there's zero relevance 
here.

Let me ask a simple question.  Was Baruch ben Neriya Ezra's teacher?  As 
Chazal say, and as Iggeret Rav Shrira Gaon and Rambam and others bring 
down.  Or not?  And if not, how do you feel about *not* having a chain 
of tradition going back to Sinai?

Lisa

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:38:51PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: I rarely, if ever, come across the word "conflate", except here on
: Avodah. When it is used here, it seems to be pejorative, indicating that
: someone confused or merged two things that really ought to stay distinct.

I think that's my doing; I like the word. And yeah, it is merging two
things that may be helpful in another context to keep distinct, but
without being as pejorative as saying they confused them.

If one assumes that Chazal's statements about the past are intended to
be about how the past should have happened rather than caring about
actual historicity, then their saying that Pinchas is Eliyahu is the
identification of what Pinechas means to us with what Eliyahu means, and
giving us a license to treat the two are a single symbol. With no intent
to imply they were historically the same very-long-lived human being.

I would also want a little more clarity from those who object to claims
about missing years between levels of objection. Do you mean:

1- This isn't my derekh.
2- I cannot see this even as eilu va'eilu, it's simply false.
3- It is heretical.

At least one of us used the latter language, and I don't see it. We have
a definition of heresy, three definitions of three subtypes of heres,
anyway (kofer, apiqreis, min).

Is anyone actually intending to claim that it violates an iqar emunah
to take Chazal's dating of events in the Galus Paras uMadai and early
Bayis Sheini period as ahistorical, meant for some hashkafic reason?

Or is it an epistomological thing? If you believe the academic community's
interpretation of the evidence and will create new peshatim to fit in this
case, you've bought into a system that would equally argue for kefirah?

And for the two people who dismiss the Greek version of Persian history:
What do you do with the astronomical state points thrown in that actually
work?

As RET noted last year, around Purim time, if you read Ezra and
Nechemiah literally, ignoring Sefer Olam, it is more consistent with
Greek historians than Chazal. I found he gave details in 1999 (v2n176)
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n176.shtml>

To quote:

    ...
    proofs for the secular history
    1. external proofs
    A. The history of Herodotus (485-425 BCE) discusses in detail the
    lives of Cyrus, Cambyses,Darius and Xerxes and briefly Atraxerxes
    who was a contemporary of Herodutus.
    It is hard to conceive that he wrote about contedmporay figures or
    recent history who did not exist. Note that according to Chazal the
    Persians did not come into power until 350 BCE 75 years after the
    death of Herodutus !!!
    Thucydides (460-400 BCE) starts with Cyrus and goes through Darius
    II and the fights between Athens and Sparta and the Peloponnesian
    Wars. Again according to Seder Olam Rabbah there was no time for
    all these wars and so probably many of these Athenian and Spartan
    leaders did not exist.
    Ctesias (430-380) was a physician in the court of Artaxerxes and
    describes the 7 kings from Cyrus through Artaxerxes II.
    There are also later Greek historians who give the complete picture.
    Josephus also includes more kings than Chazal but not the entire
    Greek list. Moderchai Breuer in his history accepts the Greek dating.
    See Parker&Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology for more details.

    Note: No modern historian claims that all facts in these histories
    are true. That is a far cry from stating that the entire history and
    not just certain details are fabrications and that all these kings
    never existed.

    B. Archaological evidence has uncovered many ancient Persian
    (cuneform) enscriptions (see for example The Persian Empire by
    J.M. Cook). For example one at the Persian palace in Persepolis says
    "I, Artaxerxes the son of Artaxerxes the son of Darius the son of
    Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes the son of Darius the son of Hystaspes"
    (Darius was not the son of Cambyses). Greek names have used for the
    original Persian names. There are other earlier enscriptions which
    are similar. These all conform to the Greek dating.

    C. There are letters from the Jewish community in Elephantine
    confirming the Greek position.

    D. I recently read of the history of the Assyrians. In their history
    they describe the reign of Sancherub and of a major eclipse of the
    sun during some battle. Astronomical calaculations confirm that the
    only full eclipse of the sun in that region occurred exactly during
    the dates of Sancherub according to the Greek chronology.

    2. Internal Proofs

    A. Ezra 45,7 describes Koresh, Daryavesh, Achasverosh, Artachasta.
    These exactly parallel the Greek chronology with Achasversh=Xerxes.
    If one looks at the Persian writing rather than the Greek names
    then Xerxes is called khshayarsha which is close to Achashverosh
    (note Cambyses is left out probably because nothing of importance
    to Ezra occured during that reign).
    Note that Daat Mikrah on Ezra 4 assumes the secular dates.

    B. Nehemia 12:10 lists 6 High Priests, son after son, between
    Yehosua and Yadua. This is hard to explain if the whole period was
    on 52 years. It is even worse if one assumes that Shimon haTzaddik
    was the high Priest at the time of Alexander as that adds at least
    one more high Priest in the 52 years According to Ben Sira Shimon
    was the son of Johanan which would make of total of at least 8 high
    priests in 52 years all presumably sons of the previous one.

    C. Comparing Divrei Hayaim I: 3:19-24 with Ezra 8:2 and Nehemia 3:29
    it seems that Ezra and Nehemis lived many years after Zerubbavel.

    Note: Daniel 11:2 seems more in line with chronology of Chazal.

    Second Note: According to Seder Olam Purim occured before the
    rebuilding of the second Temple while according to the secular
    chronology Achashverosh was the son of Darius and so the Temple was
    already in existence. According to Chazal, Daniel, Zerubavel, Ezra,
    Nehemia, Mordecai, Hagai, Zerchahiah and Malachi and even Shimon
    haTzaddik were basically contemporaries or within 1 to 2 generations
    of each other.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507               require one to be strict with another?

At 06:31 AM 5/11/2015, R. Akiva Miller wrote:
>As it was explained to me, there's nothing special about the morning 
>of Pesach Sheni. Pesach Sheni exists only on the afternoon of 14 
>Iyar and the following night. We omit Tachanun on the morning of 14 
>Iyar NOT because it is a holiday, but because it is the Tachanun 
>*before* the holiday. Alternatively, one might say that the morning 
>of 14 Iyar actually *is* Erev Pesach Sheni. Either way, the 
>afternoon of 13 Iyar is too far removed to be significant enough to 
>warrant skipping Tachanun.

 From http://tinyurl.com/ln7le2m

Some say Tachanun on Pesach Sheni (14 Iyar); some do not; some do not 
say Tachanun on 14 & 15 Iyar.

What are the sources for these customs?

Those who do say Tachanun probably do so because 14 Iyar is not 
listed as a day where Tachanun was customarily omitted by the Tur, 
anyone quoted in the Beit Yosef or Bach, by the Shulchan Aruch and 
its Mapah, the Levush, the Eliya Rabba, the Taz, the Magen Avraham, 
the Beiur haGra, the Chayei Adam, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, the 
Mishna Berura and others. The Aruch haShulchan notes the custom of 
omitting Tachanun as foreign to Ashkenaz and deems it a 'wonder' (Pelah ).

And from http://www.dinonline.org/2010/04/27/tachanun-on-erev-pesach-sheni/

Do we say Tachanun at minchah on Erev Pesach Sheni?

Answer

Yes [Shulchan Aruch Harav, Piskei Hassidur, end of Hilchos Krias 
Shema uTefilloh]

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150511/7597c056/attachment-0001.htm>

At 06:31 AM 5/11/2015, R. Joel Rich wrote:

>I wonder if this write up is indicative of a trend seen in "The 
>halachos of X" works, likutim which seem to have become more popular 
>(did they exist 40 years ago?). As Rav Aharon Lichtenstein learned 
>at Harvard, life is complex. Of course there are overarching 
>priorities which need to be learned, but specific applications are 
>hard to summarize in an algorithmic form (see hilchot lashon hara 
>and tzedaka for some obvious examples). Maybe in an internet age we 
>have no choice but to try to put everything on line but what you 
>really need IMHO  is a live mentor.

Did R.  Aharon Lichtenstein really not know that life is complex 
before he went to Harvard?  I am very sure that a man as intelligent 
as he was knew that life was complex long before he went to Harvard.

I never went to Harvard, but I knew by 12 or 13 years old that life 
in indeed complex.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150511/f15e8108/attachment-0001.htm>

*On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 06:06:53AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: From  Today's Hakhel email bulletin.
: 
:> Hakhel Note: The following is excerpted from Rav Schwab on Prayer,
:> and was related by Rav Schwab at a Shiur he gave on Tefillah...

We need a source, and such a well documented lineage for the source,
to point out what the words say? Does no one try translating a poem
they've recited since childhood (and that's true even for many BTs)?

"Adon Olam" through "velo ha'oz vehamisrah", the first 2/3 or so, talks
about how transcendent HQBH is. Then the poet (usually attributed to
Ibn Geveirol, 11th cent CE) abruptly switches to "VeHu Keili ... Hashem
li velo ira" -- that despite that transcendence, I am still capable of
having a personal relationship with Him.

Li nir'eh this is the key to understanding sheim havayah:

1- The tetragrammaton is a contraction of "Yihyeh, Hoveh, veHayah --
Will Be, Is and Was", referring to Hashem being timeless and beyond the
created. An el, when used in the secular sense, is a legislative ruler,
so that Elokeinu, is a declaration that He is our Lawgiver -- the Author
of both moral law and physical law. Havayah denotes connotes a vision
of Deity that is very Other, the philosopher's G-d; Elokus is One who
relates to man.

2- The very remoteness of the name Havayah also implies Divine Mercy.
Which is how Chazal describe its usage in chumash. This is not intuitive,
however the need to create law comes from a person's limited ability to
deal with many individual cases. A teacher with few students is effective,
one with more students, less so. To manage a country, we need laws and
policies, since we do not have infinite time and attention to cover every
decision on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it is only because Hashem
is Infinite that Divine Mercy is possible. Therefore, this expression
can be seen as a declaration of the unity of G-d, despite the different
appearances of Mercy and Strict Justice.

We can each say "veHu Keili" *because* "velo ha'oz vehamisrah".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507               require one to be strict with another?

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

>  From  Today's Hakhel email bulletin.
>
> Hakhel Note: The following is excerpted from *Rav Schwab on Prayer*, and
> was related by Rav Schwab at a Shiur he gave on Tefillah:
>
...

> *whenever a person says the word Ado--i, my Master, no matter how small he
> thinks he is, he is averring that he is in direct contact with Hashem*.
> This thought is in the introduction to any individual's Iyun Tefillah,
> concentration on Prayer. There is nothing mystical or supernatural about
> it.  It should be the most natural thing in the world.
>

I understand that "Rav Schwab on Prayer" was edited from recordings of RSS'
shiurim, and I suspect that there is some misunderstanding here. If this is
not mystical and supernatural, what is?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150511/47e108cf/attachment-0001.htm>

Friendly amendment: When all else fails consult a dictionary-- where I
found the root h-l-q both in hebrew and in arabic means "to make smooth"
(no surprises here) and (surprise) a note after that indicating arabic
h-l-q also applies to making the chin and the head smooth (hairless), i.e.
"shaving".-- Not from the idea of rounding but from the idea of smoothing.
Like in bereshit (27:11) esav was hairy and yaakov halaq.


Zvi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150511/534953fe/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)