Gen 4:7

[Jason Hare]

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

Ancient translations can be used to show us how the readers of that time understood the text. Your clichéd statements aside, the rest of the academic world refers to ancient translations as a guide to how people in that time understood the text and a witness (not authority) of earlier stages of textual transmission. If you don’t do so, it doesn’t make you better than the entire academic community.

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.

Leviticus 4:24 (BHS)
וְסָמַ֤ךְ יָדוֹ֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַשָּׂעִ֔יר וְשָׁחַ֣ט אֹת֔וֹ בִּמְקֹ֛ום אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁחַ֥ט אֶת־הָעֹלָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃

Leviticus 5:9 (BHS)
וְהִזָּ֞ה מִדַּ֤ם הַחַטָּאת֙ עַל־קִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וְהַנִּשְׁאָ֣ר בַּדָּ֔ם יִמָּצֵ֖ה אֶל־יְס֣וֹד הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃

Leviticus 5:12 (BHS)
וֶהֱבִיאָהּ֮ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן֒ וְקָמַ֣ץ הַכֹּהֵ֣ן׀ מִ֠מֶּנָּה מְלֹ֨וא קֻמְצ֜וֹ אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָה֙ וְהִקְטִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה עַ֖ל אִשֵּׁ֣י יְהוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הִֽוא׃

Ezekiel 43:21 (BHS)
וְלָ֣קַחְתָּ֔ אֵ֖ת הַפָּ֣ר הַֽחַטָּ֑את וּשְׂרָפוֹ֙ בְּמִפְקַ֣ד הַבַּ֔יִת מִח֖וּץ לַמִּקְדָּֽשׁ׃

Ezra 8:35 (BHS)
הַ֠בָּאִים מֵֽהַשְּׁבִ֨י בְנֵֽי־הַגּוֹלָ֜ה הִקְרִ֥יבוּ עֹל֣וֹת׀ לֵאלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל פָּרִ֨ים שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂ֤ר עַל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אֵילִ֣ים׀ תִּשְׁעִ֣ים וְשִׁשָּׁ֗ה כְּבָשִׂים֙ שִׁבְעִ֣ים וְשִׁבְעָ֔ה צְפִירֵ֥י חַטָּ֖את שְׁנֵ֣ים עָשָׂ֑ר הַכֹּ֖ל עוֹלָ֥ה לַיהוָֽה׃

Above are all of the references you gave. I cannot think that you believe that I simply didn’t see them. I certainly did, but your offering them as evidence is yet another indication of how you have issues reading the text.

I don’t know if it is because of your rejection of vowel points and how it has affected how you think Hebrew works, but I’m astounded how you can think that the הוא of the three verses you gave in Leviticus can have any effect upon this argument. First, the form הוא is used throughout the Torah as a feminine demonstrative as well as a masculine one (it is pointed as הִוא for feminine and הוּא for masculine). This clearly isn’t a good argument for someone who reads only the consonantal text. Additionally, each is talking about something else as its subject, and חטאת is the predicate nominative of the sentence. In 4:24, it is שעיר that is a sin offering; in 5:9, it is הנשאר בדם “what is left of the blood” that is used as a sin offering; in 5:12, it is pointed as feminine (הִוא), since it refers to the יונה from the previous verse.

Ezekiel 43:21 is clearly referring to פר again in its use of the masculine, and there is no instance of חטאת in Ezra 8:25. I found one in 8:35, which I assume is what you meant. The masculine שבעה is paired with צפירי, not with חטאת, which isn’t even plural.

Your case has not been even close to established.

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.

I don’t feel that I should look up any other verses that you have offered until you have responded to what I already did above. I must assume that you have misread these in the same way that you read the others.

[Jason Hare]

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?

There’s a set of verbs that drop the first radical and add a tav in the qal infinitive construct. For example, לָקַח “he took” becomes קַ֫חַת and נָגַע “he touched” becomes גַּ֫עַת. In most cases, this happens with first-nun and first-yod roots. For example, יָשַׁב “he sat, dwelt” becomes שֶׁ֫בֶת. Notice that the resulting form is a segolate in all cases. For more information and examples, see Gesenius §66 and §95.e. In the second section, he mentions how some first-yod (originally first-vav) roots take an alternative form. For example, יָלַד “gave birth” normally becomes לֶ֫דֶת like the other verbs in this group, but there is another form with heh instead of tav, whereby we get לֵדָה for “birth.” This happens with יָשַׁן “he slept” becoming שֵׁנָה “sleep” (as a noun).

In your case, נָשָׂא regularly becomes שְׂאֵת in the infinitive construct (לָשֵׂאת with the lamed prefix). The yiqtol of this verb also drops the nun and becomes יִשָּׂא.

[Max S-R]

In most cases, this happens with first-nun and first-yod roots. For example, יָשַׁב “he sat, dwelt” becomes שֶׁ֫בֶת. Notice that the resulting form is a segolate in all cases. For more information and examples, see Gesenius §66 and §95.e. In the second section, he mentions how some first-yod (originally first-vav) roots take an alternative form. For example, יָלַד “gave birth” normally becomes לֶ֫דֶת like the other verbs in this group, but there is another form with heh instead of tav, whereby we get לֵדָה for “birth.” This happens with יָשַׁן “he slept” becoming שֵׁנָה “sleep” (as a noun).

Thank you, Jason, and especially for the references! I can see that questions of this kind will continue to dog me till I lie dead in the dust.

At this point I have a couple reference books that, used collectively, should give me a good grip on verbal morphology, but is there something you can recommend that gives historical explanations & is maybe more current than Gesenius? I skimmed the resources subforum but didn't find expressly that.

Thanks again from עַבְדְּךָ,
- Max S-R

[kwrandolph]

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.

I just threw that out because of how you treated the feminine in Leviticus 4:33.

It is not that one of God’s commands is made known. It is the sin that he had committed that became known.

Read the whole previous verse. I just quoted from where the feminine comes.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

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

Ancient translations can be used to show us how the readers of that time understood the text.

How people of that time understood the text is not necessarily how the text was written. For example, there is evidence that some words had different meanings already when the LXX was written than their meanings in Tanakh. Later translations were more sketchy on that front. By the DSS the grammar of Hebrew had changed, how did that effect later translations? Yes, we can consult the KJV to see how those translators understood a text, but an analysis of a text may show that the KJV translators were out in left field, misunderstanding a text.

Your clichéd statements aside, the rest of the academic world refers to ancient translations as a guide to how people in that time understood the text and a witness (not authority) of earlier stages of textual transmission.

That I know. I look for authority, which is in the text itself. If there are alternate readings, those I consider.

If you don’t do so, it doesn’t make you better than the entire academic community.

Who cares what tthe community says? In science, one scientist who is correct trumps the community—are we not scientists analyzing the Hebrew language?

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.

Leviticus 4:24 (BHS)
[he]וְסָמַ֤ךְ יָדוֹ֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַשָּׂעִ֔יר וְשָׁחַ֣ט אֹת֔וֹ בִּמְקֹ֛ום אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁחַ֥ט אֶת־הָעֹלָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃[/he]

Leviticus 5:9 (BHS)
[he]וְהִזָּ֞ה מִדַּ֤ם הַחַטָּאת֙ עַל־קִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וְהַנִּשְׁאָ֣ר בַּדָּ֔ם יִמָּצֵ֖ה אֶל־יְס֣וֹד הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃[/he]

Leviticus 5:12 (BHS)
[he]וֶהֱבִיאָהּ֮ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן֒ וְקָמַ֣ץ הַכֹּהֵ֣ן׀ מִ֠מֶּנָּה מְלֹ֨וא קֻמְצ֜וֹ אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָה֙ וְהִקְטִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה עַ֖ל אִשֵּׁ֣י יְהוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הִֽוא׃[/he]

Ezekiel 43:21 (BHS)
[he]וְלָ֣קַחְתָּ֔ אֵ֖ת הַפָּ֣ר הַֽחַטָּ֑את וּשְׂרָפוֹ֙ בְּמִפְקַ֣ד הַבַּ֔יִת מִח֖וּץ לַמִּקְדָּֽשׁ׃[/he]

Ezra 8:35 (BHS)
[he]הַ֠בָּאִים מֵֽהַשְּׁבִ֨י בְנֵֽי־הַגּוֹלָ֜ה הִקְרִ֥יבוּ עֹל֣וֹת׀ לֵאלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל פָּרִ֨ים שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂ֤ר עַל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אֵילִ֣ים׀ תִּשְׁעִ֣ים וְשִׁשָּׁ֗ה כְּבָשִׂים֙ שִׁבְעִ֣ים וְשִׁבְעָ֔ה צְפִירֵ֥י חַטָּ֖את שְׁנֵ֣ים עָשָׂ֑ר הַכֹּ֖ל עוֹלָ֥ה לַיהוָֽה׃[/he]

You’re right, that was a typo for Ezra 8:35.

Above are all of the references you gave. I cannot think that you believe that I simply didn’t see them. I certainly did, but your offering them as evidence is yet another indication of how you have issues reading the text.

My “issues” reading the text is that I don’t trust the Masoretic points, There are good reasons for that distrust. 1) They reflect a pronunciation that existed over a thousand years after Biblical Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a native tongue. 2) They reflect the Masoretic understanding of the text based on the grammar of their time, which was a different grammar than the grammar used when Tanakh was written. 3) They reflect word definitions of their time, which often differed from Biblical understandings.

I know you trust the Masoretic points.

I don’t know if it is because of your rejection of vowel points and how it has affected how you think Hebrew works, but I’m astounded how you can think that the הוא of the three verses you gave in Leviticus can have any effect upon this argument. First, the form הוא is used throughout the Torah as a feminine demonstrative as well as a masculine one (it is pointed as הִוא for feminine and הוּא for masculine). This clearly isn’t a good argument for someone who reads only the consonantal text. Additionally, each is talking about something else as its subject, and חטאת is the predicate nominative of the sentence. In 4:24, it is שעיר that is a sin offering; in 5:9, it is הנשאר בדם “what is left of the blood” that is used as a sin offering; in 5:12, it is pointed as feminine (הִוא), since it refers to the יונה from the previous verse.

That the הוא normally refers to a masculine is evidence, though you reject it.

Ezekiel 43:21 is clearly referring to פר again in its use of the masculine,

In other words, your use of חטאת in this verse is as a masculine adjective.

and there is no instance of חטאת in Ezra 8:25. I found one in 8:35, which I assume is what you meant. The masculine שבעה is paired with צפירי, not with חטאת, which isn’t even plural.

Your case has not been even close to established.

Your case is that חטאת is a feminine noun, and you have nothing to show for it.

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.

I don’t feel that I should look up any other verses that you have offered until you have responded to what I already did above. I must assume that you have misread these in the same way that you read the others.

You “assume”.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

In other words, your use of חטאת in this verse is as a masculine adjective.

Absolutely NOT. It is a feminine noun (חטאת) in construct with a masculine noun (פר). The masculine noun is the head of the phrase, and all adjectives would agree with it.

[Jason Hare]

Thank you, Jason, and especially for the references! I can see that questions of this kind will continue to dog me till I lie dead in the dust.

At this point I have a couple reference books that, used collectively, should give me a good grip on verbal morphology, but is there something you can recommend that gives historical explanations & is maybe more current than Gesenius? I skimmed the resources subforum but didn't find expressly that.

Thanks again from עַבְדְּךָ,
- Max S-R

Being a Ph.D. student, @Jonathan Beck might have better access to current resources. I use teaching grammars, since my hope with Hebrew is to bring people into knowledge of the language. As far as reference grammars go, you might look at A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (2nd ed.) by Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze (Bloomsbury, 2017) and A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew by Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006). I think Jonathan (or someone else here) might be able to make reference to other resources that I don’t know about.

[Jason Hare]

Your case is that חטאת is a feminine noun, and you have nothing to show for it.

Should this really receive a reply? You’ve asserted that an obviously feminine noun, which is feminine in all instances, should be read as masculine. I’ve laid out case after case where it is demonstrably feminine in the text, yet you have not given one good case in which it is masculine—and you dare to make this absurd statement? Seriously? You might just as well make the ridiculous claim that ענן is plural and then ignore every case in which it is paired with verbs and adjectives in the singular, while providing none in the plural and accusing everyone else of not establishing their case. Good grief! This way of arguing is intolerable.

[kwrandolph]

In other words, your use of חטאת in this verse is as a masculine adjective.

Absolutely NOT. It is a feminine noun (חטאת) in construct with a masculine noun (פר). The masculine noun is the head of the phrase, and all adjectives would agree with it.

Suce when does a noun in construct follow the noun with which it is constructed?

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Your case is that חטאת is a feminine noun, and you have nothing to show for it.

Should this really receive a reply?

YOU demand a reply. So cough it up.

You’ve asserted that an obviously feminine noun, which is feminine in all instances, should be read as masculine.

It is obviously a masculine noun in Genesis 4:7, and possibly in other verses as well. Your claim doesn’t hold water.

I’ve laid out case after case where it is demonstrably feminine in the text,

No you did not.

yet you have not given one good case in which it is masculine—and you dare to make this absurd statement? Seriously?

LOL!

You might just as well make the ridiculous claim that ענן is plural and then ignore every case in which it is paired with verbs and adjectives in the singular, while providing none in the plural and accusing everyone else of not establishing their case. Good grief! This way of arguing is intolerable.

In your presentation you have made two logical fallacies—you closed here with a straw man fallacy after begging the question.

In your reply to Max S-R, you basically admit not to being a language scholar. That all you do is to regurgitate what others say. Why should we trust you?

In closing, there are more questions to this חטאת issue than mere masculine vs. feminine, do you want to discuss it, or is your mind made up and closed?

Karl W. Randolph.