Subject: [b-hebrew] resource material was chalal-perforate/pierce?
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:04:28 -0500
I am somewhat confused by the discussion of chalal. It appears
that some argue there are two roots with similar but not identical spelling.
One meaning to profane and the other having a meaning which includes wound,
pain, pierce, etc. My resources are limited so I looked this up in a couple
of modern Hebrew/English dictionaries and some of the more classical
lexicons.
The modern dictionaries treated this word as one entry, presumably
they only saw one root which included both the ideas of profane and wounding
or killing.
The classical lexicons also treat the word as being one root with
diverse meanings including: pierce through, wound, to break, and to lay open
or give access to. One lexicon goes on to explain that this is one reason
the word came to mean profane because some things which were holy were not
open to public access.
I sometimes get the impression from this group that some members
assume a theological bias on the part of scholars invalidates their work.
(Some of these are also so outdated I hate to use them but at least I can
afford them.) I can understand the sentiment but that does make it difficult
to maintain communication on theologically charged passages. So, here is my
question. Which lexicons and other resources are mutually acceptable to both
our Jewish and Christian scholars who participate on this forum? While I'm
asking, remember my resources are limited. I don't exactly live in the
middle of nowhere. Nowhere is about fifteen miles down the road. I would
appreciate it if our Jewish friends could identify any online resources they
find acceptable.