B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

For Karl because he rejects ktiv-kri.
The ktiv reads לוֹ in 1 Samuel 2:16 above (marked in red). The MT indicates that this is ktiv-kri, and the word should be read as לֹא. The priest would tell people that if they didn’t give them the meat uncooked before it had been burnt on the altar, then he would take it by force. The word is a refusal of the supplicant’s offer. “The man said to him, ‘They will burn the fat by day, then take for yourself as your soul desires.’ And he would say, ‘NO! But you will give it now, and if not, then I’ll take it by force!’” How can you not read לֹא rather than לוֹ?

A inverted qere (ל֣וֹ) / ketiv (לא) sequence occurs in Isaiah 63:9.

Chris Kimball
West Redding, CT
USA

cvkimball wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:25 am A inverted qere (ל֣וֹ) / ketiv (לא) sequence occurs in Isaiah 63:9.

Chris Kimball
West Redding, CT
USA

Interestingly, where my quote was taken from, we have a verse further up in the chapter that has לֹא instead of לוֹ (verse 3), as as if they had been inverted.

In each of these cases (3+) a listener would not know the difference between the qere/ketiv forms on the basis of the word sound alone. That is, a listener needs the entire verse context to understand what is being said.

The phrasing of the verse through accents might provide the listener with a basis for distinction between the two forms. The existing accents are for the qere by Masoretic design. Would the accents be compatible if the word was from the ketiv rather qere, or would the whole verse need to be pointed differently?

Chris Kimball
West Redding, CT
USA

The phrase וְאָמַ֥ר ‖ [לֹא֙] (לו) (1S 2:16) also reminds me of four other places where we have an אמר rooted-word separated from לא by a paseq (not a legarmeih), meaning some form of «said "no"»:

• Gen 18:15 וַיֹּ֥אמֶֽר ‖ לֹ֖א
• Jud 12:5 וַיֹּ֥אמֶֽר ‖ לֹֽא׃
• 1K 2:30 וַיֹּ֥אמֶֽר ‖ לֹ֖א
• 1K 11:22 וַיֹּ֣אמֶֽר ‖ לֹ֔א

(BTW, in MAM, we have only recently added that interesting gaʿya on mem in Gen 18:15; all 3 other cases already had it. This gaʿya (or its lack) in various manuscripts is covered in MAM's documentation for this verse.)

See section 412 of Yeivin's Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Here's my not-so-faithful version of it, and here's a quite-faithful version of it:

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 9:35 pm For Karl because he rejects ktiv-kri.

גַּם֮ בְּטֶרֶם֮ יַקְטִר֣וּן אֶת־הַחֵלֶב֒ וּבָ֣א ׀ נַ֣עַר הַכֹּהֵ֗ן וְאָמַר֙ לָאִ֣ישׁ הַזֹּבֵ֔חַ תְּנָ֣ה בָשָׂ֔ר לִצְל֖וֹת לַכֹּהֵ֑ן וְלֹֽא־יִקַּ֧ח מִמְּךָ֛ בָּשָׂ֥ר מְבֻשָּׁ֖ל כִּ֥י אִם־חָֽי׃
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֵלָ֜יו הָאִ֗ישׁ קַטֵּ֨ר יַקְטִיר֤וּן כַּיּוֹם֙ הַחֵ֔לֶב וְקַ֨ח־לְךָ֔ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּאַוֶּ֖ה נַפְשֶׁ֑ךָ וְאָמַ֥ר ׀ לוֹ֨ כִּ֚י עַתָּ֣ה תִתֵּ֔ן וְאִם־לֹ֖א לָקַ֥חְתִּי בְחָזְקָֽה׃

The ktiv reads לוֹ in 1 Samuel 2:16 above (marked in red). The MT indicates that this is ktiv-kri, and the word should be read as לֹא. The priest would tell people that if they didn’t give them the meat uncooked before it had been burnt on the altar, then he would take it by force. The word is a refusal of the supplicant’s offer. “The man said to him, ‘They will burn the fat by day, then take for yourself as your soul desires.’ And he would say, ‘NO! But you will give it now, and if not, then I’ll take it by force!’” How can you not read לֹא rather than לוֹ?

Easy. First because it’s written לו. Secondly לו makes perfect sense in the context. Thirdly, לו is perfectly good Hebrew syntax. There’s no need to change the text.

Karl W. Randolph.

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 10:45 pmEasy. First because it’s written לו. Secondly לו makes perfect sense in the context. Thirdly, לו is perfectly good Hebrew syntax. There’s no need to change the text.

Never mind. I forget who I’m dealing with here and the handwaving tactics that he uses rather than actually reading a text, which he isn’t really able to read. Please, forget that I asked. You cannot just say that it is good with לוֹ when the text obviously means לֹא “No!” and not לוֹ “to him.”

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:25 am

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 10:45 pmEasy. First because it’s written לו. Secondly לו makes perfect sense in the context. Thirdly, לו is perfectly good Hebrew syntax. There’s no need to change the text.

Never mind. I forget who I’m dealing with here and the handwaving tactics that he uses rather than actually reading a text, which he isn’t really able to read. Please, forget that I asked. You cannot just say that it is good with לוֹ when the text obviously means לֹא “No!” and not לוֹ “to him.”

“Obviously”? What sort of handwaving is that?

Karl W. Randolph.