How to Decypher the HALOT Module

[Enoch]

Here is a sample preliminary entry (for a root) in HALOT:

QUOTE

‏נגע

: MHeb. 1QM 7:4; 1QSa 23?5 pt. pu., cf. MHeb. ‏מנגע‎ leprous; EgArm, (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 174), JArm. to touch, Mnd. (Drower-M. Dictionary 288a) to strike, Eth. Leslau 33.

UNQUOTE

 

I tried reading the (very wordy) introduction to find out what the layout of HALOT was, but was unsuccessful. If you look above at the quotation you will see that these (following) meanings are listed (before HALOT starts in on the individual binyanim, qal, etc.):

 

leprous, to touch, and to strike.

However, those meanings are interjected in what looks like an attempt at etymology & cognate study with abbreviations for Middle Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic, and Mandaean.

 

What I am wondering is whether this lexicon is avowing (at this point) that the root means leprous, to touch, and to strike; or whether the lexicon is merely saying that those meanings are found in Middle Hebrew (Middle Ages), Jewish Aramaic, and Mandaean respectively?

 

[jpkang]

To answer your immediate question, the latter. HALOT is pretty circumspect about putative root meanings (note that every single word in the phrase "roots have meaning" is up for grammatical and semantic debate).

 

Note that BDB (1906) more confidently asserts "touch, reach, strike" for Biblical Hebrew definitions of נגע before it starts citing cognate evidence.