Forgive me if this one has already been discussed, but my searches for it didn't yield anything.
The apparatus of the BHS seems to insist that this verse is corrupt, saying of the latter half that it was "originally probably modeled on the formula in 3:16", where Eve is told that her duty is toward her husband. That's all fine, but I want to know whether what I have (supposing the text isn't corrupt) is even grammatically correct. I should note that my learning in Hebrew is entirely amateur, and so my feelings won't be hurt if I'm told it's very bad. I read:
הֲלֹוא (Is it not [the case that]) אִם־תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת וְאִם לֹא תֵיטִיב (whether thou dost well in [thy] offering, or whether thou dost not well), לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ (at the door of sin [there is one] crouching [= a beast]) וְאֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתֹו (and unto thee is its longing) וְאַתָּה תִּמְשָׁל־בֹּו׃ (and thou shalt have dominion in it).
Am I correct to take לַפֶּתַח as in construct with the following noun because the following noun's gender doesn't agree with that of רֹבֵץ? Is it okay to think that the first word (הֲלֹוא) is merely an interrogative particle answering to Jerome's 'nonne', which expects an affirmative answer?
Lastly, (and probably most importantly), what in the world is going on? What does of all of this mean? Why does God spurn Cain's gift, and what sin "crouching at the door" is he alluding to? Is it the past sin involving forbidden fruit, or the future sin of his brother's slaughter?
Sorry if this is all a big mess, but I've been stewing on this for damn near a month & I just can't make sense of any of it.
Many thanks,
Max S-R
Gen 4:7
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Gen 4:7
Do they have any other MMS to back up their claim of corruption? Or is this merely speculation?Max S-R wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:49 am Forgive me if this one has already been discussed, but my searches for it didn't yield anything.
The apparatus of the BHS seems to insist that this verse is corrupt, saying of the latter half that it was "originally probably modeled on the formula in 3:16", where Eve is told that her duty is toward her husband.
Yes, the verse is grammatically correct.
That’s why we’re all here, and we all make mistakes. And all of us get surprised by things we don’t know.
The last phrase shows one of the uses of the Yiqtol, namely possibility “you can rule it”.Max S-R wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:49 am I read:
הֲלֹוא (Is it not [the case that]) אִם־תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת וְאִם לֹא תֵיטִיב (whether thou dost well in [thy] offering, or whether thou dost not well), לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ (at the door of sin [there is one] crouching [= a beast]) וְאֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתֹו (and unto thee is its longing) וְאַתָּה תִּמְשָׁל־בֹּו׃ (and thou shalt have dominion in it).
The noun חטאת is masculine, while the noun חטאה is feminine. Note twice more the references to the masculine.
What confuses matters is that the consonantal spelling of both is the same in the construct use.
Sorry, I don’t know Latin. The Hebrew is a standard interrogative opening, similar to the English “Is not…” or “Does not…”
The answer to why is not given in the text.
This is not a reference to any specific sin, rather a generalized reference to sin.
I hope my answers helped. But if I left you more confused than ever, don’t hesitate to ask.
Karl W. Randolph.
- Max S-R
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2022 7:17 am
Re: Gen 4:7
Many thanks, Karl! I just assumed חטאת was feminine, what a dunce!
With regard to the supposed corruption (I don't know how to quote you on this forum), my text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) only offers what is read in the Septuagint for the first half of the verse (and then, next to it, it says '= לְנַתַּח חָטָאתָ רְבׁץ'). I frankly don't know where they're getting the Hebrew, unless they're, so to speak, reverse-engineering it from the Greek as if to say 'this is what the translators would have been looking at'.
Does anyone know of a parallel story in other (Afro-Asiatic) traditions, where one brother's offering doesn't please the father but the other's does?
With regard to the supposed corruption (I don't know how to quote you on this forum), my text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) only offers what is read in the Septuagint for the first half of the verse (and then, next to it, it says '= לְנַתַּח חָטָאתָ רְבׁץ'). I frankly don't know where they're getting the Hebrew, unless they're, so to speak, reverse-engineering it from the Greek as if to say 'this is what the translators would have been looking at'.
Does anyone know of a parallel story in other (Afro-Asiatic) traditions, where one brother's offering doesn't please the father but the other's does?
"I yam what I yam." - Popeye the Sailor Man
שְׁתֵה בַיּוֹם עֲדֵי יִפֶן וְשֶׁמֶשׁ
עֲלֵי כַסְפּוֹ יְצַפֶּה אֶת זְהָבוֹ
שְׁתֵה בַיּוֹם עֲדֵי יִפֶן וְשֶׁמֶשׁ
עֲלֵי כַסְפּוֹ יְצַפֶּה אֶת זְהָבוֹ
-
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Gen 4:7
Don’t be too hard on yourself. I wouldn’t be surprised if many other people made the same mistake.
It’s been years since I last looked at a Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia—ever since I started reading on my computer instead of paper—but if my memory is correct, the editors did translate back from the LXX and other translations at times to say that these constitute alternate readings.Max S-R wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:19 pm With regard to the supposed corruption (I don't know how to quote you on this forum), my text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) only offers what is read in the Septuagint for the first half of the verse (and then, next to it, it says '= לְנַתַּח חָטָאתָ רְבׁץ'). I frankly don't know where they're getting the Hebrew, unless they're, so to speak, reverse-engineering it from the Greek as if to say 'this is what the translators would have been looking at'.
I can’t think of any exact parallels, does anyone else know of any?
Karl W. Randolph.
- Jason Hare
- Posts: 1923
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: Gen 4:7
For a more updated source for textual criticism, see the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) rather than the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS).
Genesis 4:7 (BHQ)
הֲלֹ֤וא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת
וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ
וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָ֯ת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּֽוֹ׃
וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ Most versions follow M [Masoretic Text] in translating this second conditional sentence. G [Old Greek], however, divides the sequence differently. תיטיב is rendered as an adverb that determines the verb διέλῃς. The latter is probably derived from the reading לנתח, “to cut,” for לפתח pointing to the sacrifice, which was considered wrongly done (reported, e.g., by Wevers, Notes on Genesis, 55). Skinner has already objected to this thesis, claiming that it has no sense in connection with fruit-offerings (Genesis, 106). Further, the M noun חטאת is taken as a verb, חָטָאתָ, “you have sinned,” and the participle רבץ as an imperative supposing the vocalization רְבַץ: “If you divided it incorrectly, you have sinned. Be quiet!” (Harl, Genèse, 114). The meaning “lying in tranquility” is common for this verb, e.g., Isa 11:6; 14:30. See the following comment. The difficulty with the text of M [Masoretic Text] resides in the lack of agreement in gender of the feminine subject חטאת and the masculine predicate רבץ (to Gunkel, Genesis, 45, the former is a gloss, and the latter the name of a Babylonian demon). See the extensive discussion in Rösel, Übersetzung als Vollendung, 104–07.
תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ The subject of the verb is not entirely clear. To Jewish medieval exegetes, it is the evil penchant that lies in ambush at the door and longs for Cain (Rashi, Qimḥi). Ibn Ezra stresses that, depending on Cain’s conduct, it will “return” to his dominion. In this he parallels תשוקתו with תשובתו (cf. comments at 3:16). The latter is meant by the rendering of G [Old Greek], ἀποστροφή, shared by θ [Theodotion], but with Abel as subject, as indicated by the masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ (Wevers, Notes on Genesis, 55). S [Syriac] understands the verb in the same way, but puts Cain in the position of its subject: “you will turn towards it (i.e., the sin).” On the other hand, σ [Symmachus], V [Vulgate], and the Targumim side with M [Masoretic Text].
וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּֽוֹ׃ It is difficult to establish with certainty to what בו refers. Since the m. pronoun αὐτοῦ cannot be related to the f. noun ἁμαρτία, there is little doubt that for θ [Theodotion] the object of the verb is Abel, as it is for G [Old Greek] in contrast to the other versions, which follow M [Masoretic Text] in its attribution of בו to חטאת, unusually considered masculine in view of its predicate רבץ (but see BDB [Brown-Driver-Briggs], s.v.). This also holds true for σ [Symmacus], which has the feminine αὐτῆς, congruent with ἁμαρτία. S [Syriac] is unique in its inverse perception of the verse: “he will dominate you,” with ܚܛܗܐ as subject. See comments on תשוקתו.
[Source: Abraham Tal, Genesis: Critical Apparatus and Notes, Quinta editione, vol. 1 of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2015), 11.]
The BHS doesn’t insist on the text being corrupt in this spot, but suggests an emendation to the last part of the verse. It simply gives a suggestion for a possible original of the Septuagint version of the verse first part of the verse (reading לפתח חטאת רבץ as לְנַתַּח חָטָ֫אתָ רְבֹץ instead of לַפֶּ֫תַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ, trading out לפתח to לנתח), since the Septuagint diverges greatly from the received Hebrew text:הֲלֹ֤וא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת
וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ
וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָ֯ת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּֽוֹ׃
וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ Most versions follow M [Masoretic Text] in translating this second conditional sentence. G [Old Greek], however, divides the sequence differently. תיטיב is rendered as an adverb that determines the verb διέλῃς. The latter is probably derived from the reading לנתח, “to cut,” for לפתח pointing to the sacrifice, which was considered wrongly done (reported, e.g., by Wevers, Notes on Genesis, 55). Skinner has already objected to this thesis, claiming that it has no sense in connection with fruit-offerings (Genesis, 106). Further, the M noun חטאת is taken as a verb, חָטָאתָ, “you have sinned,” and the participle רבץ as an imperative supposing the vocalization רְבַץ: “If you divided it incorrectly, you have sinned. Be quiet!” (Harl, Genèse, 114). The meaning “lying in tranquility” is common for this verb, e.g., Isa 11:6; 14:30. See the following comment. The difficulty with the text of M [Masoretic Text] resides in the lack of agreement in gender of the feminine subject חטאת and the masculine predicate רבץ (to Gunkel, Genesis, 45, the former is a gloss, and the latter the name of a Babylonian demon). See the extensive discussion in Rösel, Übersetzung als Vollendung, 104–07.
תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ The subject of the verb is not entirely clear. To Jewish medieval exegetes, it is the evil penchant that lies in ambush at the door and longs for Cain (Rashi, Qimḥi). Ibn Ezra stresses that, depending on Cain’s conduct, it will “return” to his dominion. In this he parallels תשוקתו with תשובתו (cf. comments at 3:16). The latter is meant by the rendering of G [Old Greek], ἀποστροφή, shared by θ [Theodotion], but with Abel as subject, as indicated by the masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ (Wevers, Notes on Genesis, 55). S [Syriac] understands the verb in the same way, but puts Cain in the position of its subject: “you will turn towards it (i.e., the sin).” On the other hand, σ [Symmachus], V [Vulgate], and the Targumim side with M [Masoretic Text].
וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּֽוֹ׃ It is difficult to establish with certainty to what בו refers. Since the m. pronoun αὐτοῦ cannot be related to the f. noun ἁμαρτία, there is little doubt that for θ [Theodotion] the object of the verb is Abel, as it is for G [Old Greek] in contrast to the other versions, which follow M [Masoretic Text] in its attribution of בו to חטאת, unusually considered masculine in view of its predicate רבץ (but see BDB [Brown-Driver-Briggs], s.v.). This also holds true for σ [Symmacus], which has the feminine αὐτῆς, congruent with ἁμαρτία. S [Syriac] is unique in its inverse perception of the verse: “he will dominate you,” with ܚܛܗܐ as subject. See comments on תשוקתו.
[Source: Abraham Tal, Genesis: Critical Apparatus and Notes, Quinta editione, vol. 1 of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2015), 11.]
𝔊 διέλῃς, ἥμαρτες; ἡσύχασον = לְנַתַּח חָטָאתָ רְבֹץ
I would be careful with forcing the preposition בְּ־ to be “in” in translation. The verb לִמְשׁוֹל (that is, מָשָׁל) governs its object with the preposition בְּ־. Thus, בּוֹ in this verse should be translated simply as “it,” not as “in it.”Max S-R wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:49 amThe apparatus of the BHS seems to insist that this verse is corrupt, saying of the latter half that it was "originally probably modeled on the formula in 3:16", where Eve is told that her duty is toward her husband. That's all fine, but I want to know whether what I have (supposing the text isn't corrupt) is even grammatically correct. I should note that my learning in Hebrew is entirely amateur, and so my feelings won't be hurt if I'm told it's very bad. I read:
הֲלֹוא (Is it not [the case that]) אִם־תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת וְאִם לֹא תֵיטִיב (whether thou dost well in [thy] offering, or whether thou dost not well), לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ (at the door of sin [there is one] crouching [= a beast]) וְאֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתֹו (and unto thee is its longing) וְאַתָּה תִּמְשָׁל־בֹּו׃ (and thou shalt have dominion in it).
First, yes, Hebrew הֲלֹא or הֲלוֹא corresponds to Latin nonne. The grammatical disagreement has obviously presented problems for interpreters, as noted in the BHQ remarks above (“The difficulty with the text of M resides in the lack of agreement in gender of the feminine subject חטאת and the masculine predicate רבץ (to Gunkel, Genesis, 45, the former is a gloss, and the latter the name of a Babylonian demon).”). I’m not really sure the point is in mentioned a Babylonian demon. That might be a direction for further investigation, if you’re interested.Max S-R wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:49 amAm I correct to take לַפֶּתַח as in construct with the following noun because the following noun's gender doesn't agree with that of רֹבֵץ? Is it okay to think that the first word (הֲלֹוא) is merely an interrogative particle answering to Jerome's 'nonne', which expects an affirmative answer?
What if we did take חטאת ḥaṭṭāʾṯ as some sort of demon or divinity that crouches before anyone who is being tested to do what is right. If it used as a name, it could take a masculine verb or adjective.Max S-R wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:49 amLastly, (and probably most importantly), what in the world is going on? What does of all of this mean? Why does God spurn Cain's gift, and what sin "crouching at the door" is he alluding to? Is it the past sin involving forbidden fruit, or the future sin of his brother's slaughter?
Just a suggestion. I haven’t yet read the rest of the thread.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
- Jason Hare
- Posts: 1923
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: Gen 4:7
See the text of the Old Greek and Syriac.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:38 pmDo they have any other MMS to back up their claim of corruption? Or is this merely speculation?
No, a feminine noun does not agree with a masculine participle.
This is certainly among the modal uses of the yiqtol, and I think you’re probably correct.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:38 pmThe last phrase shows one of the uses of the Yiqtol, namely possibility “you can rule it”.
You read חטאת as masculine? Where do you see this in any other parts of the Tanach? 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?kwrandolph wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:38 pmThe noun חטאת is masculine, while the noun חטאה is feminine. Note twice more the references to the masculine.
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.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:38 pmWhat confuses matters is that the consonantal spelling of both is the same in the construct use.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
- Jason Hare
- Posts: 1923
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: Gen 4:7
It is feminine. You are not a dunce.
Yes, that is what the BHS is doing. It is attempting to reconstruct a Hebrew text that might have given way to the reading in the Septuagint, assuming that the translators were working perhaps from a different Vorlage to what we have in the MT.Max S-R wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:19 pmWith regard to the supposed corruption (I don't know how to quote you on this forum), my text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) only offers what is read in the Septuagint for the first half of the verse (and then, next to it, it says '= לְנַתַּח חָטָאתָ רְבׁץ'). I frankly don't know where they're getting the Hebrew, unless they're, so to speak, reverse-engineering it from the Greek as if to say 'this is what the translators would have been looking at'.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
- Jason Hare
- Posts: 1923
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: Gen 4:7
Nope. But, then again, I don’t generally know much about those traditions or even where to find them.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:43 pmI can’t think of any exact parallels, does anyone else know of any?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
- Jason Hare
- Posts: 1923
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: Gen 4:7
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:
I found this by just looking for the first instance my eye landed on in which חטאת (not in construct) was the subject of a verb. I’m sure that the claim that it is a masculine noun could easily be demonstrated false in several other instances. I’ve never heard anyone claim that this noun is feminine in gender. It seems like a claim that wants demonstration. I’d love something other than this verse in Genesis to establish the claim.
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: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
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).וְנֹֽודְעָה֙ הַֽחַטָּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֥ר חָטְא֖וּ עָלֶ֑יהָ וְהִקְרִ֨יבוּ הַקָּהָ֜ל פַּ֤ר בֶּן־בָּקָר֙ לְחַטָּ֔את וְהֵבִ֣יאוּ אֹתֹ֔ו לִפְנֵ֖י אֹ֥הֶל מֹועֵֽד׃
I found this by just looking for the first instance my eye landed on in which חטאת (not in construct) was the subject of a verb. I’m sure that the claim that it is a masculine noun could easily be demonstrated false in several other instances. I’ve never heard anyone claim that this noun is feminine in gender. It seems like a claim that wants demonstration. I’d love something other than this verse in Genesis to establish the claim.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
- Jason Hare
- Posts: 1923
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: Gen 4:7
Here’s another clear example:
Looking through instances of חטאת in such a situation, I have yet to find a counterexample in support of Karl’s claim.
Leviticus 4:33 (BHS)
וְסָמַךְ֙ אֶת־יָד֔וֹ עַ֖ל רֹ֣אשׁ הַֽחַטָּ֑את וְשָׁחַ֤ט אֹתָהּ֙ לְחַטָּ֔את בִּמְק֕וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִשְׁחַ֖ט אֶת־הָעֹלָֽה׃
If חטאת as a sin offering (Karl’s second entry) were a masculine noun, we would expect אֹתוֹ rather than אֹתָהּ, as we see it here. He clearly isn’t slaughtering his hand. It is the חטאת that is being slaughtered.וְסָמַךְ֙ אֶת־יָד֔וֹ עַ֖ל רֹ֣אשׁ הַֽחַטָּ֑את וְשָׁחַ֤ט אֹתָהּ֙ לְחַטָּ֔את בִּמְק֕וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִשְׁחַ֖ט אֶת־הָעֹלָֽה׃
Looking through instances of חטאת in such a situation, I have yet to find a counterexample in support of Karl’s claim.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳