Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Re:plurality & divinity

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "John Gray" <jgray AT lfmp.com.au>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Re:plurality & divinity
  • Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:22:32 +1000

Dear b-hebrew members - I wonder if any of you would be kind enough to comment on, or direct me to an information source on the question of plurality in relation to the divinity? e.g. the word elohim, G-d speaking as "we", and the manifestations of G-d as, for example, three men in at least one Genesis story, also the mention of G-d in Psalms as the greatest, or foremost, among the Gods. Is this something which stikes others, as well as myself, a very novice scholar? John Gray
----- Original Message ----- From: <b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:00 AM
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 30, Issue 12


Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

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


Today's Topics:

1. Re: Gen 25:29 - 30 - Adom & Edom (Karl Randolph)
2. stew of Edom (Yigal Levin)
3. Leviticus 11:33 (Lisbeth S. Fried)
4. Re: Re: Zechariah 12:1-2 (Steve Miller)
5. Re: Zechariah 12:1-2 (Steve Miller)
6. Re: Leviticus 11:33 (George F Somsel)
7. Re: Zechariah 12:1-2 (Peter Kirk)
8. impure food (Lisbeth S. Fried)
9. Re: impure food (George F Somsel)


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

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:53:03 -0500
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 25:29 - 30 - Adom & Edom
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <20050614195303.0B4916EEF6 AT ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Jack:

Look at the context. Esau is coming from the hunt and is very tired. He sees his brother stirring a stew with red beans. He then demands to be fed (a happax verb, we guess at its meaning) from the stew *comma* this stew... (the *comma* not in Hebrew, but understood and added for English use). The emphasis is not grammatical, but contextual. He wants to eat, now, from the stew that is already prepared, he does not want to wait for the next serving to be made.

While we are on this verse 30, is there any clue from cognate languages that can clarify the meaning of &#1500;&#1506;&#1496; l(+ ? Could it actually have a meaning such as to put in a bowl, portion out, or something similar?

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: tladatsi AT charter.net

Hello,

In Gen 25:29 Jacob is cooking *naziyd* (boiled food) and
Esau comes in asks to eat *ha-adom ha-adom* ...

I have a few questions.

...

2) Is *ha-adom* repeated simply for dramatic effect, to
show Esau's desperation or is there some gramatical or
semantic point being made.

Thanks.

Jack Tladatsi

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm



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

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:13:44 +0200
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
Subject: [b-hebrew] stew of Edom
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <002501c57125$f43a7e90$09664684@xp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-8-i"

Hi Jack,

The color Adom (red) is always spelled with the defective holem, except in
Cant. 5:10, where it means something like "ruddy".
The eponym/land of Edom is almost spelled with a full holem (that
s, )DWM ), except in Ez. 25:24, where the word "be'edom" ("in Edom")
appears twice, the first of which is defective. On the other hand, "Adomi"
(Edomite) is always defective, although the plural Adomim can go either way.

The word Edom appears in a couple of the Arad ostraca, dated to the early
sixth century. There, it's spelled defectively.


And yes, I think that "that red, red, soup", is meant for effect.

Yigal
----- Original Message -----
From: <tladatsi AT charter.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 6:31 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Gen 25:29 - 30 - Adom & Edom


Hello,

In Gen 25:29 Jacob is cooking *naziyd* (boiled food) and
Esau comes in asks to eat *ha-adom ha-adom* with a qamets
under th aleph and what I take to be a defective holem over
the dalet. He is thus called Edom with a hateph segol
under the aleph and a holem vav after the dalet.

I have a few questions.

1) Is there any information on when a defective holem is
used? Are there any thoughts on why the defective holem
was used for Esau's cry for the red lentil soup but not for
his new nickname Edom? Since one of the points of these
verses is to explain how Esau came to be called Edom, it
would seem that using a holem vav in adom would, at least
visually, strengthen that link.

2) Is *ha-adom* repeated simply for dramatic effect, to
show Esau's desperation or is there some gramatical or
semantic point being made.

Thanks.

Jack Tladatsi


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

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:24:57 -0400
From: "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>
Subject: [b-hebrew] Leviticus 11:33
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <200506142225.j5EMP253021504 AT reformers.mr.itd.umich.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Dear All,
This probably is not strictly a question of the
Hebrew, but what type of earthenware vessel is
implied here (Lev. 11:33)?
Milgrom (1991:675) says that the prohibition would
not apply to glazed clay which does not absorb
impurities or to unfired clay which would maintain
its status as soil, and so cannot be contaminated.
I don't understand what type of vessel is left
then which must be broken.
Thanks.

Liz Fried




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

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:45:11 -0400
From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Zechariah 12:1-2
To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <000701c5715c$a2930080$6900a8c0@Dad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"


Thanks Baruj. I just ordered _The Stone Edition Tanach_.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Baruj Diez" <barujdiez AT yahoo.es>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 6:16 PM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: Zechariah 12:1-2


Dear B-Hebrew citizens,

>> Zechariah [...] Putting 12:1-2 together could it
>> also be rendered "the burden of the word of Jehovah
>> concerning Israel ... and also concerning Judah"?

> I think this must be interpreted in the sense that
> whatever is against Jerusalem is also against Judah,
> so meaning something like "this cup will also be
> against Judah, a siege against Jerusalem".

This is how _The Stone Edition Tanach_ translates
it:

Behold, I am making Jerusalem a cup of poison
for all the peoples all around;* also Judah
will take part in the siege of Jerusalem.

* Before the End of Days, the nations will
besiede Jerusalem, and even force Jews to join
them, but the enemies will be destroyed
instead (_Targum_).

Best wishes,

--
Baruj Diez
Asturias, España






______________________________________________
Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!
Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
http://correo.yahoo.es
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




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

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:50:34 -0400
From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Zechariah 12:1-2
To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <000e01c5715d$62a4ec80$6900a8c0@Dad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>> >>On 13/06/2005 22:06, Steve Miller wrote:
> >>>Zechariah chapters 12-14 are "the burden of the word of Jehovah
concerning
> >>>Israel" (12:1). Putting 12:1-2 together could it also be rendered
"the
>>>burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel ... and also >>>concerning
> >>Judah"?
> >>...
> >>If the 2nd ×¢Ö·×oÖ¾ is translated "concerning" like the 1st, then it > >>is
the
> >>burden of the word of Jehovah which is on Judah, rather than the
siege.

> >From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> >>The subject of the second part of verse 2 is an interesting question.
It
> >>is not "they" as KJV, for it is singular. It is not YHWH for he is in
> >>the first person. I think it must be the "cup of bewilderment". But it
> >>cannot possibly be the burden, as this is far too remote. I think this
> >>must be interpreted in the sense that whatever is against Jerusalem is
> >>also against Judah, so meaning something like "this cup will also be
> >>against Judah, a siege against Jerusalem".

> >From: Steve Miller
> >Thanks Peter. But, the cup of bewilderment is what Jehovah will put on
all
> >the nations that come against Jerusalem. It is not the portion of
Jerusalem
> >or of Judah.

>From: Peter Kirk
Indeed, my mistake as I was rushing this. I think in fact the subject of
the clause must be impersonal, so meaning more like "Also against Judah
will be the state of siege against Jerusalem", in other words not only
Jerusalem but also Judah will suffer. NIV has "Judah will be besieged as
well as Jerusalem", which gets my point.

Thanks again Peter. I have to agree with your argument, at least for now,
that "the burden" could not be the subject of Zech 12:2b, because it is too
remote. If I had another passage where the antecedent is that far from the
verb, then I would have a case for "burden", but I don't.

If the meaning were "Judah will also suffer in the siege against Jerusalem":
1) Why should the Bible, which doesn't waste a word, bother to say it at
all? Isn't it obvious that if Jerusalem is besieged, the surrounding area
will also suffer?
2) Why should Zechariah say something so simple in such a
difficult-to-understand way?

The Stone Tanach translation gives the most straight-forward understanding,
if you just read Zech 12:2 by itself. That impresses me, although I don't
think that is the right understanding because I don't see it supported in
the rest of the passage nor anywhere else in the Bible.

The KJV translation may be correct "when they [the peoples] shall be in the
siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem." You objected to "they" as
the subject for ×TÖ´Ö½×"Ö°×TÖ¶×" (shall be) because ×TÖ´Ö½×"Ö°×TÖ¶×" is singular. But the
3rd masculine singular is used in Hebrew as the indefinite pronoun, which
is
best translated in English as "they". Examples are:
Zech 13:9 :
×.Ö°×"Öµ×'ֵאתִ×T אֶת־×"ַשְּׁ×oִשִׁ×Tת ×'ָּאֵשׁ ×.ּצְרַפְתִּ×Tם ×>ִּצְרֹף אֶת־×"Ö·×>ֶּסֶף
×.Ö¼×'Ö°×-Ö·× Ö°×ªÖ¼Ö´×Tם ×>Ö¼Ö´×'Ö°×-Ö¹×Y אֶת־×"Ö·×-Ö¼Ö¸×"Ö¸×' ×"×.ּא ×? ×Tִקְרָא ×'ִשְׁ×zÖ´×T ×.Ö·Ö½×Ö²× Ö´×T
×Ö¶×¢Ö±× Ö¶×"
אֹתֹ×. אָ×zַרְתִּ×T ×¢Ö·×zÖ¼Ö´×T ×"×.ּא ×.Ö°×"×.ּא ×Tֹא×zַר ×TÖ°×"×.Ö¸×" אֱ×oÖ¹×"Ö¸Ö½×T×f ס
â?oAnd I will bring the third part through the fire,
Refine them as silver is refined,
And test them as gold is tested.
They will call on My name,
And I will answer them;
I will say, â?~They are My people,â?T
And they will say, â?~The Lord is my God.â?Tâ? (NASB)

and Isa 7:14 DSS where Matthew translated ×.ְקָרָא שְׁ×zÖ¹×. ×¢Ö´×zÖ¼Ö¸× ×.Ö¼ אֵֽ×o×f as
"and they shall call His name Immanuel."
-Steve Miller
Detroit



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

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:24:00 -0400
From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Leviticus 11:33
To: lizfried AT umich.edu
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <20050615.032400.-1032373.3.gfsomsel AT juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:24:57 -0400 "Lisbeth S. Fried"
<lizfried AT umich.edu> writes:
Dear All,
This probably is not strictly a question of the
Hebrew, but what type of earthenware vessel is
implied here (Lev. 11:33)?
Milgrom (1991:675) says that the prohibition would
not apply to glazed clay which does not absorb
impurities or to unfired clay which would maintain
its status as soil, and so cannot be contaminated.
I don't understand what type of vessel is left
then which must be broken.
Thanks.

Liz Fried
_______________________________________________

The _Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament_, ed. Harris, Archer &
Waltke states s.v.
__________________________________________________
759 XR% (?rs). Assumed root of the following.
759a XeRe% (?eres) earthenware.
759b XeReS (?eres) an eruptive disease (Deut 28:27).
759c XRSWT (?rswt) (Kethib), XaR:SiYT (?arsi^t) (Qere) potsherds (Jer
19:2).
This word, which occurs seventeen times, represents the potter's product
(Isa 45:9) which is dried and fired (Ps 22:15 [H 16]), or even glazed
(Prov 26:23). Bottles (baqbuq), bowls (keli^), and pots/pitchers (nebel)
are made of it. It is in vessels made of ?eres that documents were stored
(Jer 32:14). ?eres can apply generally to a vessel (Prov 26:23), or it
can mean pieces of potsherd at least large enough to use to carry a coal
from a hearth or dip water for a drink (Isa 30:14). Hence, ?eres is the
baked clay so commonly unearthed by archaeologists.
Being porous, it absorbed the fat of holy things and the uncleanness of
unclean things. Thus it was to be broken when contacted by either
holiness or uncleanness (Lev 6:28 [H 21]; Num 15:12). A clay vessel was
to be used in the trial of jealousy (Num 5:17) and in leprosy
purification rites, symbolizing man's commonness before God. The Psalmist
prophetically compares the Messiah's strength to a dried up and baked
piece of clay (potsherd, Ps 22:15 [H 16]). During the exile the "most
precious" royalty of Israel became as valueless and common as clay pots
(Lam 4:2). God reminds the people of their relative worthlessness and
vulnerability by comparing them to clay vessels (Isa 45:9). Jeremiah
(19:1) bought (and subsequently broke) an earthenware pot to symbolize
how Israel had so absorbed sin that they had to be destroyed according to
God's law regarding polluted pottery (Lev 11:33).
____________________________________________

It would appear that it does refer only to fired clay, but other than
that, it doesn't seem to specify whether it is glazed or not.

george
gfsomsel
___________

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

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:43:49 +0100
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Zechariah 12:1-2
To: Steve Miller <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <42AFF855.3030409 AT qaya.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 15/06/2005 04:28, Steve Miller wrote:

...

If the meaning were "Judah will also suffer in the siege against Jerusalem":
1) Why should the Bible, which doesn't waste a word, bother to say it at
all? Isn't it obvious that if Jerusalem is besieged, the surrounding area
will also suffer?



I'm not sure that I accept the premise. Well, I can accept that in God's
sovereignty every word in the Bible has a purpose, if that is what you
mean. But it is simply not true that the Bible always says what it says
in the most compact way, without any apparent redundancy. There is a lot
of repetition in the Bible. The poetic books are full of poetic
parallelism which is essentially repetitious. Chronicles largely repeats
Samuel and Kings, and there are other examples of repetition. This
repetition has its reasons, of course, but they cannot easily be
understood in terms of there being no redundancy as judged by our own
standards.

Maybe it is obvious that Judah will suffer if Jerusalem is besieged,
maybe not. But many obvious things are stated in the Bible. Why not this
one?

2) Why should Zechariah say something so simple in such a
difficult-to-understand way?



I don't think it was difficult to understand for mother tongue Hebrew
speakers. It is perhaps a rather compressed way of writing, whose
meaning is not as clear to us now as it was to the prophet and his
original audience.

The Stone Tanach translation gives the most straight-forward understanding,
if you just read Zech 12:2 by itself. That impresses me, although I don't
think that is the right understanding because I don't see it supported in
the rest of the passage nor anywhere else in the Bible.



The Stone Tanach is easy to understand, but it is wrong. "also Judah
will take part in the siege of Jerusalem" implies that Judah will be
among those attacking Jerusalem. Well, the possibility of such treachery
gives the answer "No" to your question "Isn't it obvious that if
Jerusalem is besieged, the surrounding area will also suffer?" But this
is certainly not what the author had in mind, for the same preposition
`AL is used for both Judah and Jerusalem, surely implying that they both
play the same role as those besieged.

The KJV translation may be correct "when they [the peoples] shall be in the
siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem." You objected to "they" as
the subject for ×TÖ´Ö½×"Ö°×TÖ¶×" (shall be) because ×TÖ´Ö½×"Ö°×TÖ¶×" is singular. But the
3rd masculine singular is used in Hebrew as the indefinite pronoun, which is
best translated in English as "they". ...


Well, I accept that the subject of YIHYEH may be indefinite in this
sense, and in principle may be translated into English by "they". But
this cannot be done immediately following another plural noun which can
fit the context. The KJV rendering "...unto all the people round about,
when they shall be in the siege..." implies that "they" refers to "the
people" - and this would be even clearer if instead of "the people" the
translation was the more accurate (at least in modern English) "the
peoples". But in Hebrew the subject of YIHYEH cannot be the peoples,
even though this seem to make sense.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.3/15 - Release Date: 14/06/2005



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

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:46:07 -0400
From: "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>
Subject: [b-hebrew] impure food
To: "'George F Somsel'" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <200506151246.j5FCkC59023852 AT reformers.mr.itd.umich.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thanks George,

I guess earthenware can be fired but unglazed, and that according to Milgrom

this is the only type that need be broken. That must be rabbinic, itâ?Ts not in the text.

Also, I donâ?Tt understand why food that is wet becomes impure. What about soup?

They boiled the meat before the ark at Shiloh.

Lisbeth S. Fried, Ph.D.
Visiting Scholar
The Frankel Center for Judaic Studies
and the Department of Near Eastern Studies
University of Michigan
2068 Frieze Bldg
105 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1285

_____

From: George F Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel AT juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:24 AM
To: lizfried AT umich.edu
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Leviticus 11:33



On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:24:57 -0400 "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu> writes:
Dear All,
This probably is not strictly a question of the
Hebrew, but what type of earthenware vessel is
implied here (Lev. 11:33)?
Milgrom (1991:675) says that the prohibition would
not apply to glazed clay which does not absorb
impurities or to unfired clay which would maintain
its status as soil, and so cannot be contaminated.
I don't understand what type of vessel is left
then which must be broken.
Thanks.

Liz Fried
_______________________________________________

The _Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament_, ed. Harris, Archer & Waltke states s.v.

__________________________________________________

759 XR% (ḥrÅ>). Assumed root of the following.

759a XeRe% (ḥereÅ>) earthenware.

759b XeReS (ḥeres) an eruptive disease (Deut 28:27).

759c XRSWT (ḥrswt) (Kethib), XaR:SiYT (ḥarsıÌ,t) (Qere) potsherds (Jer 19:2).

This word, which occurs seventeen times, represents the potterâ?Ts product (Isa 45:9) which is dried and fired (Ps 22:15 [H 16]), or even glazed (Prov 26:23). Bottles (baqbÅ«q), bowls (kÄ.lıÌ,), and pots/pitchers (nÄ"bel) are made of it. It is in vessels made of ḥereÅ> that documents were stored (Jer 32:14). ḥereÅ> can apply generally to a vessel (Prov 26:23), or it can mean pieces of potsherd at least large enough to use to carry a coal from a hearth or dip water for a drink (Isa 30:14). Hence, ḥereÅ> is the baked clay so commonly unearthed by archaeologists.

Being porous, it absorbed the fat of holy things and the uncleanness of unclean things. Thus it was to be broken when contacted by either holiness or uncleanness (Lev 6:28 [H 21]; Num 15:12). A clay vessel was to be used in the trial of jealousy (Num 5:17) and in leprosy purification rites, symbolizing manâ?Ts commonness before God. The Psalmist prophetically compares the Messiahâ?Ts strength to a dried up and baked piece of clay (potsherd, Ps 22:15 [H 16]). During the exile the â?omost preciousâ? royalty of Israel became as valueless and common as clay pots (Lam 4:2). God reminds the people of their relative worthlessness and vulnerability by comparing them to clay vessels (Isa 45:9). Jeremiah (19:1) bought (and subsequently broke) an earthenware pot to symbolize how Israel had so absorbed sin that they had to be destroyed according to Godâ?Ts law regarding polluted pottery (Lev 11:33).

____________________________________________



It would appear that it does refer only to fired clay, but other than that, it doesn't seem to specify whether it is glazed or not.



george
gfsomsel
___________



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

Message: 9
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:22:56 -0400
From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>
Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: impure food
To: lizfried AT umich.edu
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <20050615.092256.-66119045.1.gfsomsel AT juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:46:07 -0400 "Lisbeth S. Fried"
<lizfried AT umich.edu> writes:
Thanks George,
I guess earthenware can be fired but unglazed, and that according to
Milgrom
this is the only type that need be broken. That must be rabbinic, it's
not in the text.
Also, I don't understand why food that is wet becomes impure. What about
soup?
They boiled the meat before the ark at Shiloh.
Lisbeth S. Fried, Ph.D.
Visiting Scholar
The Frankel Center for Judaic Studies
and the Department of Near Eastern Studies
University of Michigan
2068 Frieze Bldg
105 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1285
_____________

It would seem that anything which comes in contact with such unclean
animals partakes of the uncleanness. This would include water which
would then communicate the uncleanness second-hand.

george
gfsomsel
___________

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

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 30, Issue 12
****************************************





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page