Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Dear Professor Yigal Levin:
 
In your last post on this thread, you made some very good points with which 
I totally agree.  You said:  “Places do not get their names out of thin 
air. Most (perhaps all) toponyms meant something at one time. Now it is 
possible that the original meaning is forgotten, and to the people of a later 
period the name is "just a name", but in the case of MOST biblical names, 
they 
seem to preserve the same meaning they had had since they were originally 
given, sometimes as early as the Middle Bronze Age, when Western-Semitic 
dialects were first used in Canaan. “  I agree 100%.  You also said:  
“Ayalon, 
Alon and Elon (with and without the Yod), as well as the feminine Elah, are 
types of trees. It does not really matter which tree is which or whether we 
even know which is which. The different terms may have been used for 
different 
trees (or even as a generic "tree", such as the rabbinic Hebrew use of Alon) 
in different periods (remember, we are talking about 1500 years at least). 
So let's not get bogged down with discussion on whether a particular form 
means "oak", or something else.  So I would think that the place is named for 
the tree.”  Once again, I agree 100%.
 
You said:  “The town of Ayalon is named after a tree. Exactly which tree, I 
don't know. Might it originally have been pronounced Aylon or Eylon, and 
sometimes spelled without a Yod? Maybe.”  I agree completely.  [In this post 
I 
will not discuss your one comment with which I disagree, namely that “Might 
there have also been an Ayalon/Elon etc. near Hebron, just like the Elon 
Beza'ananim near Kedesh in the Galilee? Why not?”]
 
You also said:  “Since the MT often shifts between plene and defective 
spellings of the same word, and the Mesoretes (Sir Isaac's NQDNYM) filled in 
the 
nuqqud as best they could, with, in the case of proper names, no real 
grammar to guide them, I would not hang too much on the difference between 
forms 
such as Ayalon, Eylon and so on.”  I agree 100%.
 
You closed with this question:  “So what are you trying to prove?”
 
To that final question, I sent in a post arguing that )LNY MMR) at Genesis 
13: 18 grammatically can have, and should be viewed as having, all three of 
the following meanings:  “oak trees of Mamre”  a-n-d  “oak tree cities of 
Mamre”  a-n-d  “Aijalons of Mamre/Oak Tree Cities of Mamre”.
 
Do you agree with my grammatical analysis that based on Biblical Hebrew 
grammar, it is possible for )LNY MMR) at Genesis 13: 18 to have the above 
three 
meanings?  I realize that you do not seem to accept my controversial view 
that when in southern Canaan, the Patriarchs sojourned near the Aijalons in 
the rural paradise of the southerly part of the eastern Aijalon Valley, 
rather than in rugged, mountainous southern hill country.  But am I right in 
thinking that your opposition to my view is  n-o-t  based on considerations 
of 
Hebrew grammar?  On the b-hebrew list, I am first and foremost asking if there
’s something wrong with my Biblical Hebrew grammar analysis, when I assert 
that in my opinion, it is possible that at Genesis 13: 18 )LNY MMR) may mean 
all of the following:  “oak trees of Mamre”  a-n-d  “oak tree cities of 
Mamre”  a-n-d  “Aijalons of Mamre/Oak Tree Cities of Mamre”.  That last 
meaning is possible precisely because there were two Aijalons, located in 
very 
close proximity to each other, in the southerly portion of the eastern 
Aijalon 
Valley, per Joshua 19: 42-43.  I see )LNY as being masculine construct 
plural, and as conforming to all the ordinary rules of Hebrew grammar.  Since 
)LN and )YLN can have the same meaning, despite the difference in spelling 
regarding the interior yod, it seems to me that )LN can nicely recall )YLN, 
despite the spelling difference regarding that interior yod.  Thus whereas 
)LN 
is a common word that means “oak tree” or “oak tree place” and which does 
not have an interior yod, it can recall the proper name )YLN/“Aijalon”, 
because that proper name has exactly the same underlying meaning, even though 
that proper name has an interior yod.  Thus )LNY can mean “oak trees of” or “
oak tree cities of” or “Aijalons of” or “Oak Tree Cities of”, and it can 
have all of those meanings, even though there’s no interior yod in )LNY and 
the proper name “Aijalon”/)YLN does have an interior yod.  [For sake of 
simplicity, I have always omitted the interior vav/W in these words and 
proper 
names, because that is merely a plene spelling issue.] 
 
If you or anyone else sees an error in my understanding of the applicable 
Hebrew grammar here, I would greatly appreciate someone pointing out the 
error of my Hebrew grammatical analysis of this phrase.  This particular 
phrase 
is of tremendous importance to my overall view of the Patriarchal 
narratives, so any help I can get with the Hebrew grammar of this phrase 
would be 
wonderful.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois