Gen 4:7

[Jason Hare]

Leviticus 5:11 (BHS)
וְאִם־לֹא֩ תַשִּׂ֨יג יָדֹ֜ו לִשְׁתֵּ֣י תֹרִ֗ים אֹו֮ לִשְׁנֵ֣י בְנֵי־יֹונָה֒ וְהֵבִ֨יא אֶת־קָרְבָּנֹ֜ו אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָטָ֗א עֲשִׂירִ֧ת הָאֵפָ֛ה סֹ֖לֶת לְחַטָּ֑את לֹא־יָשִׂ֨ים‬ עָלֶ֜יהָ שֶׁ֗מֶן וְלֹא־יִתֵּ֤ן עָלֶ֨יהָ֙ לְבֹנָ֔ה כִּ֥י חַטָּ֖את הִֽיא׃

If חטאת as “sin offering” were a masculine noun, we would see עָלָיו rather than עָלֶ֫יהָ here. Indeed, there could be no justification for the feminine הִיא at the end of the verse if this were a masculine noun. The feminine can refer to nothing else (as opposed to the cases in which we see חַטָּאת הוּא in other verses).

[Jason Hare]

Leviticus 6:18 (BHS)
דַּבֵּ֤ר אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹן֙ וְאֶל־בָּנָ֣יו לֵאמֹ֔ר זֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הַֽחַטָּ֑את בִּמְקֹ֡ום אֲשֶׁר֩ תִּשָּׁחֵ֨ט הָעֹלָ֜ה תִּשָּׁחֵ֤ט הַֽחַטָּאת֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֔ה קֹ֥דֶשׁ קָֽדָשִׁ֖ים הִֽוא׃

The red here has the niphal feminine yiqtol (תִּשָּׁחֵט) used with the subordinate clause (in which עוֹלָה is the subject), just as the blue has the same exact feminine form used in the main clause (in which חַטָּאת is the subject). I don’t see how חטאת here, clearly a sin offering, is a masculine noun. The claim seems clearly defeated.

[Jason Hare]

Leviticus 6:23 (BHS)
וְכָל־חַטָּ֡את אֲשֶׁר֩ יוּבָ֨א מִדָּמָ֜הּ אֶל־אֹ֧הֶל מֹועֵ֛ד לְכַפֵּ֥ר בַּקֹּ֖דֶשׁ לֹ֣א תֵאָכֵ֑ל בָּאֵ֖שׁ תִּשָּׂרֵֽף׃

In this verse, it would seem that it could be masculine, since חטאת could be viewed as the subject of the passive verb (huphal) יוּבָא, but it’s very clearly the subject of תִּשָּׂרֵף at the end of the verb, which is feminine. In some instances in the Bible, the huphal is used with an impersonal “it” sense, and it can take a direct object (cf. Leviticus 4:23).

[Jason Hare]

The following uses חַטָּאת as a specific instance of sin, not a concept of sinfulness, and it is paired with a feminine verb (הָֽיְתָה as opposed to masculine הָיָה) and a feminine demonstrative adjective (זֹאת as opposed to masculine זֶה).

1 Samuel 14:38 (BHS)
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר שָׁא֔וּל גֹּ֣שֽׁוּ הֲלֹ֔ם כֹּ֖ל פִּנּ֣וֹת הָעָ֑ם וּדְע֣וּ וּרְא֔וּ בַּמָּ֗ה‬ הָֽיְתָ֛ה הַחַטָּ֥את הַזֹּ֖את הַיֹּֽום׃

Whether it refers to a specific instance of sin or to an offering made for sin, I haven’t yet found another instance of ambiguous gender in the Tanach. I’m still looking, but the claim that חטאת is a masculine noun just doesn’t seem tenable to me.

[Jason Hare]

I don’t think I should continue in this way. It is clear that this word is feminine. It was declared masculine by Karl in his dictionary in order to create a distinction that doesn’t exist based solely on this verse in Genesis, in order to force it to analyze as grammatical as written, since he is an inerrantist. It is a distinction based on theology (the doctrine of biblical inerrancy—which insists on the correctness of every single letter in the text and does not allow for emendation or correction from other ancient versions of the text), not on how the word is actually used in the biblical Hebrew language.

[Jonathan Beck]

For those interested, here is another look from a commentary, from a biblical scholar far greater than I, or Karl, or even Jason:

“Is there not forgiveness.” “The most obscure verse in Genesis” (Procksch). Because of its grammatical improprieties and its unusual terminology, commentators are forced to choose between emendation and positing a rare meaning for רבץ “crouching.” To compound the problems, other words are of uncertain meaning. Of the various suggestions the following present the least difficulty:
Ben Yashar (BMik 7 [1963] 116–19; ZAW 94 [1982] 635–37) suggests new meanings for the nouns שאת “forgiveness” and פתח “door.” The former he translates “first-born’s dignity” (cf. 49:3), and the latter, “first-born”; cf. the p 105 phrase “to open the womb” (29:31; 30:32). So he translates the whole verse: “Is it not this way? If you do well, there is the honour due to the first-born. If you do not do well, sin crouches [reading תרבץ ] for the first-born.” In other words, Cain, the first-born, has special responsibilities, especially in worship. If he carries them out, he will enjoy the privileges associated with his primacy.
Though this interpretation is quite compatible with biblical thinking, it seems precarious in that it postulates new meanings for two words and a textual emendation (תרבץ 3 fem. sg impf. for רבץ). Then Ben Yashar maintains that “His/its urge … you must rule over him/it” refers to Cain dominating Abel, which does not seem to follow on very easily from the previous clauses.
Ramaroson (Bib 49 [1968] 233–37) observed that the present formulation of the divine speech is rhythmically unbalanced as well as grammatically unsound (see Notes). It falls into three lines:

“Is there not forgiveness, if you do well?” 3 beats
“And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door” 5 beats
“Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it” 4 beats

Ramaroson suggests that a scribe has by accident transposed sin from the first to the second line. Originally it read:

הלא אם־תיטיב שאת חטאת
“Is there not forgiveness of sin, if you do well?”
ואם לא תיטיב לפתח רבץ
“If you do not do well, the croucher (demon) is at the door.”
ואליך תשׁוקתו ואתה תטשׁל־בו
“Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

On this rearrangement, there are now four beats per line; the “it(s)” in the third line must refer to “the croucher” (masculine participle) and not to sin which is feminine; and the lack of concord between sin (f) and crouching is eliminated. In adopting the translation “croucher, demon” from Akk. rābiṡu for רבץ, Ramaroson is following a suggestion first proposed by Lenormant in 1880 and subsequently adopted by many commentators (cf. AHW, 935b).
Substantially similar interpretations of the verse’s syntax and meaning are offered by Cassuto, Speiser, Westermann, Gispen, and Vawter, but without rearranging the word order. These commentators argue that רבץ is a masculine noun to which the suffixes ו “it(s)” in the final line refer. However, if the sentence is not rearranged á la Ramaroson, the meaning of שׁאת “forgiveness” becomes uncertain. The word comes from the root נשא “to lift up,” which is a broad term whose precise meaning can only be determined by the context. Here it may refer to (1) God’s forgiving Cain (Tg. Onq.); (2) God’s receiving Cain and his offering (Vg, S, RSV, SEB, Calvin, König, Kidner) or (3) Cain’s subjective feelings, i.e., exaltation as opposed to his fallen face (vv 5–6; so Speiser, Delitzsch, Keil, Dillmann, Driver, von Rad, Westermann) or (4) Cain’s posture—“upstanding,” not crouching like sin; so Cassuto. In that the primary contrast in the divine interrogation is between שאת and חטאת רבץ, the traditional interpretations (1 and 2), referring שאת to God’s forgiveness or acceptance of Cain, seem more probable than a mere reference p 106 to Cain’s feelings or posture. Nevertheless, there may be a secondary allusion to v 6, “Why has your face fallen?” for if Cain were forgiven or accepted, he might well have felt exalted too.
“Sin is crouching.” רבץ “crouching” is frequently and plausibly identified with Akk rābiṡu, denoting various officials and also demons, especially those that guard entrances to buildings. Here then sin is personified as a demon crouching like a wild beast on Cain’s doorstep.
“Its urge is for you, but you must rule over it”; cf. 3:16 and Comment there.


Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 104–106.

[Jonathan Beck]

Grammatically, outside of this verse, there is no question that חטאת is a feminine noun. Though I would be interested to see if there are other words where it is a grammatical mismatch. For the record, I really like the demon idea. I'll check one of my Jewish commentaries and post what they say, if I can find it.

Jonathan

[Max S-R]

Very grateful for the contributions of all parties, gentlemen!

I must admit that the sort of metrically-motivated restoration Jonathan has brought up is very attractive, although I know precisely nothing about Hebrew prosody, of any age. I'm also glad to know that the main stumbling block seems to be the disagreement of gender: that it wasn't just me. As I continue to work through Genesis, I find the matter of Jacob & Esau is strikingly similar to the one at hand.

Can anyone explain morphologically what's happening with this שְׂאֵת? It's supposed to be the construct inf. of נָשָׂא, but what happened to the first syllable? Is it not part of the root?

Allow me to text the quote function:

"The most obscure verse in Genesis"

Wow, I really picked a humdinger!

[kwrandolph]

Do they have any other MMS to back up their claim of corruption? Or is this merely speculation?

See the text of the Old Greek and Syriac.

Seeing as translations are not evidence, I put this in the realm of speculation.

The noun חטאת is masculine, while the noun חטאה is feminine. Note twice more the references to the masculine.

You read חטאת as masculine? Where do you see this in any other parts of the Tanach?

Yes, I do see this in other parts of the Tanakh. Examples include Leviticus 4:24, 5:9, 12, Ezekiel 43:21, Ezra 8:25. Admittedly most of these examples are of a type of sacrifice, but what I am looking at is the grammatical usage as masculines.

The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (DCH) specifically lists it as feminine and doesn’t mention any place in which it is masculine. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) doesn’t mention it ever being used as a masculine, neither does BDB mention it as masculine at any point. Are you basing your statement on this verse alone?

No, see above.

What confuses matters is that the consonantal spelling of both is the same in the construct use.

If you could point them to show how each should be read, it would be really useful. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

I don’t understand your question here.

In Leviticus 6:23 the verb תאכל can also be taken as a second person Yiqtol verb. In the context of the previous verses, I think the second person Yiqtol verb fits better. The same with Leviticus 6:18. On Leviticus 4:33, look at verse 32 where the offering, the subject of the verb, is feminine.

In Karl’s personally published Hebrew dictionary, he says that חטאת is a masculine noun referring to an individual sin or the offering offered for it. By contrast, he claims that חטאה, which has the construct also as חטאת means sinfulness as an abstract concept. Here are the entries from his dictionary:

Have you not added to what I wrote when you wrote “individual sin”?

חטאה state of being in error ⇒ sinfulness (once, probably a typo, sin offering Ps 40:7) ← חטא

חטאת missing the mark such that one needs to make amends for the error ⇒ sin, sin offering, sacrifice for error, ⇒ lack, not having what was aimed for (this is a masculine noun, however the feminine noun חטאה when in the construct form and when a suffix is added to it is also spelled חטאת which can cause confusion) ← חטא

The following verse very clearly demonstrates how this is false:

Leviticus 4:14 (BHS)
וְנֹֽודְעָה֙ הַֽחַטָּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֥ר חָטְא֖וּ עָלֶ֑יהָ וְהִקְרִ֨יבוּ הַקָּהָ֜ל פַּ֤ר‬ בֶּן־בָּקָר֙ לְחַטָּ֔את וְהֵבִ֣יאוּ אֹתֹ֔ו לִפְנֵ֖י‬ אֹ֥הֶל מֹועֵֽד׃

Both the blue and the red correspond to Karl’s second entry here. The blue refers to an instance of sin, the sin itself (not the state of sinfulness), and the red refers to the offering to be made for atonement of that sin. So far, so good. However, the weqatal verb that has חטאת as its subject is using a feminine form (ונודעה) rather than what would have been the masculine form (ונודע).

Again, look at the context. The subject of נודעה is אחת מכל מצות יהוה in the previous verse. Or do you say that הביאו אתו refers to חטאת?

Further, the context of the previous verse shows that חטאת, while the context indicates that it is a single sin, it is unspecified.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

The following verse very clearly demonstrates how this is false:

Leviticus 4:14 (BHS)
וְנֹֽודְעָה֙ הַֽחַטָּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֥ר חָטְא֖וּ עָלֶ֑יהָ וְהִקְרִ֨יבוּ הַקָּהָ֜ל פַּ֤ר‬ בֶּן־בָּקָר֙ לְחַטָּ֔את וְהֵבִ֣יאוּ אֹתֹ֔ו לִפְנֵ֖י‬ אֹ֥הֶל מֹועֵֽד׃

Both the blue and the red correspond to Karl’s second entry here. The blue refers to an instance of sin, the sin itself (not the state of sinfulness), and the red refers to the offering to be made for atonement of that sin. So far, so good. However, the weqatal verb that has חטאת as its subject is using a feminine form (ונודעה) rather than what would have been the masculine form (ונודע).

Again, look at the context. The subject of נודעה is אחת מכל מצות יהוה in the previous verse. Or do you say that הביאו אתו refers to חטאת?

Further, the context of the previous verse shows that חטאת, while the context indicates that it is a single sin, it is unspecified.

Karl W. Randolph.

No, it should be obvious that the אתו of that verse is referring to פר. It is not that one of God’s commands is made known. It is the sin that he had committed that became known. What was offered was a bull, and it was offered as a sin offering. The masculine refers to the bull. I question how you read Hebrew. This really should be obvious to anyone.