<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 face=Arial color=#000000 size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>From: Micha Berger <A
href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</A><BR>: Three examples of
Rashi assuming certain words to have come from other <BR>: languages (or
to be cognate to words in other languages) come to mind:
[--TK]<BR><BR>Definitely not "come from other languages"! Rashi on Bereishis
1:11<BR>reads "'Safah achas' - leshon haqodesh."<BR><BR>Clearly Rashi felt the
bilbul leshonos was incomplete, leaving traces<BR>of similarities in some words
from the original leshon haqodesh.<BR><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>>>>></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>You meant to type Bereishis 11:1 -- re the Dor Haflaga (or as
they say in these erudite parts, Dor HaPalagah). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yes, Rashi says that the original language of mankind, the "safah achas",
was Loshon Hakodesh. However there is no suggestion in Rashi's words that
"Clearly Rashi felt the bilbul leshonos was incomplete...." You are making
an inference based on what you yourself believe, but there is nothing in
Rashi to support that inference.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In any case, even if there were traces of Hebrew left here and there in
other languages, that would not help Rashi's (Chazal's) etymologies of "avrech"
and "totafos." In these two cases we do not see foreign languages
retaining traces of Hebrew, but the opposite -- the Hebrew language seeming to
contain traces of foreign languages.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You can't say that in the Caspian language they retained the original
Hebrew word for two, "tat," since tat is not the original Hebrew word for
two! Nor can you say that Africi retained a trace of Hebrew in its word
for two, since "pat" also is not the original Hebrew word for two. And
"rech" is not the original Hebrew word for king, so you can't find in Latin a
trace of the original Hebrew, either. (Not in the word avrech, anyway.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"><BR><B>--Toby Katz<BR>==========<BR><BR></FONT><FONT lang=0
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"></B>--------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></FONT><DIV CLASS="aol_ad_footer" ID="c62bae269c7ce234fd95f8324b55e95d"><br/><font style="color:black;font:normal 10pt arial,san-serif;"> <hr style="margin-top:10px"/><a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220433363x1201394532/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B212935224%3B34245239%3Bb">Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479</a></font></DIV></BODY></HTML>