[Avodah] City names after AZ

[D&E-H Bannett]

Re: the discussion about Mumbai being the AZ for which 
Bombay
was renamed.

It should be pointed out that, in most far-eastern 
languages, there is no differentiation between "r" and "l" 
and also between "m" and "b".  They are otyot mit-chal'fot.

In world war two the American army used passwords with L's 
such as Honolulu.
The instruction was, if the person challenged answers 
Honoruru, shoot him.

I usually enjoy illustrating by examples:

In Bangkok, a local man explained to me that the building 
opposite was the "home of the lawyer famiry".  As I knew 
that Thailand was a kingdom, I managed to understand.

Many years ago, while in Kuala Lumpur, I learned to write my 
family name in Chinese. On the plane from there to Hongkng,I 
was handed a form to fill out before landing. The 
instructions were in English and Chinese and I wrote my 
family name in Chinese to see what would happen.  The 
official looked at the form and then took a long stare at 
me.  He then inquired, "Mr. Mannett"?  I replied, "That's 
right, David Bannett".

The Korean alphabet, despite the picture-like form, is a 
phonetic alphabet.  One symbol is used for both L and r and 
another single symbol for m and b. The M is a rectangle and, 
mostly to accommodate foreign transliteration, the B has the 
vertical lines of the rectangle stick out a bit above the 
top horizontal line.  Similarly, the L and R are a backwards 
S. The S has squared corners. Again to differentiate, the 
bottom corner of the R is rounded.

And what is the point of all this? Simply, that it seems to 
me that Bombay and Mumbai are evidently the same word. If it 
is an AZ, it's the same AZ in both versions.

And, as long as I am writing,  Re: R' Akiva Miller's 
question <<in Vayishlach -- we encounter a place whose name 
is "Beis El". This is clearly written as two words. My 
question: Is the second of those words kodesh, or is it 
chol?>>

Not so clearly. R' Wolf Heidenheim notes a machloket on this 
name and in the beginning of Lekh-l'kha brings sources that 
make him decide that the correct form is Bethel in one word. 
Look in any Roedelheim chumash.  All the Bethels are written 
as one word. Koren, Breuer, Netter, Leningrad codex, and 
most others have a makaf between the halves which some would 
say makes it two words.

In his list of kodesh vs. chol words R' Heidenheim notes 
that, in Bet El as two words, the second word is chol. This 
is shown by Onkelos and Yonatan who translate  Beth El, as a 
place name, unchanged from the Hebrew, and not as Bet Elaha. 
He does not mention the single-word form in the list because 
a piece of a word or name, can not be kodesh. But that was 
two hundred years ago.


k"t,

David