שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

[S_Walch]

I agree. Connected with that is what is the form of the Hiphil?

Depends on whether we're talking plene or defective spellings :p

Though I would usually expect the plene with the hiphil - השיאני (Gen 3:13).

Yes, this is the Western, English understanding of passive. We have a binary system, where a verb is either active or passive, with nothing in between. However, some languages have what is known as the “middle”, neither fully passive nor fully active, rather contains elements of both active and passive.

I have come to the conclusion that many times that the Biblical Hebrew “passive” is often used more as a middle than a strictly binary passive.

So to give English equivalents, consider the following:
I was committed is an example of a binary passive. (I understood this committed as in the example of someone committed to a locked mental ward of a hospital.)
I had him committed is more of a middle between passive and active. I had is active, him committed is passive.

I personally wouldn't see him committed as passive - the 'him' is the object that is affected by the verb, so this to me is active. The 'had' is merely a helper for the verb to have it make sense in English, and doesn't have a voice to it (so it's neither active nor passive).

To break this down a bit into a S-O-V word order:

I (subject) him (object) had committed (verb).

In this case, had committed is the pluperfect of the verb 'to commit', with the verb affecting a specific object.

In Greek, the middle voice is for those verbs with an active meaning yet still have some sort of affect on the subject, usually for the benefit of the subject. Mostly the verbs are intransitive, but there are more than a few that are transitive.

Λουω/to wash is a good example - it can be active (ἔλουσεν 'he washed [their wounds]' cf Acts 16:33), middle (λούσεται 'he shall wash himself' Lev 14:8 LXX), or even passive (ἐλούσθης 'you were washed' Ezek 16:4).

Applying this to 'commit', a middle-voice idea would be I had myself committed - effectively in English, we have to include both the subject ('I')and the object ('myself') - the verb 'commit' is still active though, as it has an object that it affects, even if the object is also the same as the subject.

I had him committed is neither middle nor passive, as the middle essentially has the subject and object as the same thing. Here, the object is different from the subject, and there's no idea of it benefiting the subject in a passive-like way, and so can only be active.

My understanding of the Hophal is that it is used in both situations, with the syntax indicating the binary passive vs. the middle passive. So if we were to give word for word translations of the above sentences, omitting the helper verb had and taking was committed (which has a causative built in to its meaning) as a Hophal, we have the following:
I was committed as the binary passive
I was committed him as the middle passive. (Of course, this doesn’t make sense in English.)

Again, your middle passive I would just class as active - 'was committed' is merely past-tense.

Brought has the causative already built in to its meaning, hence it would be a Hiphil. So the hiphil הקריב את העולה comes out in English as He brought the offering. The Hophal הקרב את העולה comes out as a middle passive He had the offering brought.

Again, that to me is still active - the object and subjects aren't the same thing, nor is He acting on himself or the offering for his own benefit, for it to be middle-like.

Example: He accepted the offering
This is middle - the subject is accepting the object, and this specifically benefits the subject. It also appears as active in English, as the subject is also performing the action, and not just receiving its benefit.

We could make this more explicit: He accepted the offering for his own benefit - this make it quite clear.

Greek wouldn't have to be so full - εδεξατο την προσφοραν - middle verb with object that benefits the subject, who is doing the action of the verb.

Right now all I present is how I understand Biblical Hebrew usage, and trying (apparently not too successfully) to let you know how I understand it.

No trouble, I just don't see how Lev 9:17 is an example of a hophal indicating the middle - it looks more active than anything to me, and doesn't follow any convention on how the middle voice is usually used.

However, with your edit:

Ps: the Greek example you cited from Matthew 14 is an example of an Indo-European usage of language: the boss can say I wrote five letters today when all he did was dictate them. The secretary who took down the dictation and did the actual writing, can also say I wrote five letters today because she did the actual writing. So Herod was credited with beheading John the Baptist, even though a soldier (most likely) wielded the sword.

My understanding is that a Hophal would have been used had this been written in Biblical Hebrew.

Ah, then this does actually make sense, though I wonder whether such an understanding couldn't be applied to the hiphil, especially if there's a direct object involved?

Having a hophal meaning similar to Matt 14, would be changing the hophal to an active voice, but with an indication that a third party is doing the action of the verb. So in Lev 9:17, even though Aaron is credited with the bringing of the offering, it was a Levite priest that did the action of the verb instead.

I'm not quite sure how I'd categorise such a thing. Induced-active?

[kwrandolph]

I wanted to show that the Hiphil form is not to be translated or paraphrased into one form only when the root is changed

You translate it different ways when the root isn’t changed. You also mix up Hiphil and Hophal.

On other issues, you use definitions for words that are not Biblical, as well as grammar and syntax that aren’t Biblical.

Now about the אכל
maybe my english is not so great
but as far as i know
when a mother gives her baby to eat - she feeds him
and thats what i meant
i don't care if theres a better word in english
I don't mind if it wil be XXX
i look at the hebrew as it is
אכל-האכיל

Not in Biblical Hebrew. I’m not talking about English here.

The Hiphil of אכל is from the meaning from Qal אכל
i dont care what the translation is
אכל is to eat - and האכיל is to put food into someone mouth (I call it feeding)
…
Now Ezekiell ויאכילני את המגילה הזאת again
ויאכילני=ויאכיל אותי
what is the difference from this to what i wrote?

The angel didn’t put the scroll into Ezekiel’s mouth. He caused Ezekiel to eat it. The same with the other verses to which you can point.

About the רעה

The רעה doesn't fit to this post because it is not casual and this is what I was talking about

You were talking about feeding, and רעה is the word about feeding. This is the Biblical Hebrew meaning, not the modern definition that you give.

instead of replying me with words - find me a verse with רעה that says that those who eats are not animals

Genesis 48:15, 2 Samuel 5:2, 7:7, Isaiah 40:11, 44:20, should I list more verses?

About the נפל FALL
it seems again that you don't realize my point
To fall - in english and hebrew - gramaratical - is active - no doubt
But according to the meaning - it is active-passive

I did answer that, and said that the Qal of “fall” is simple active. Other binyanim modify the simple active.

And the root נפל is the common word for droppong

Not in Biblical Hebrew.

About אכל

Again - my point is not to write it biblical style
only about the playing with the conjugation

You examples indicate that the conjugations had different meanings in your understanding than they did in Biblical Hebrew. My interest here is Biblical Hebrew, not those other meanings.

about נכר - i dont even answer to you
too complicated for you to understand…and if i start to talk about this root
it will take for 10 pages of discussion just about that

That’s why I didn’t discuss it.

About קרב

you ask me
"Where is it used as Piel? How do you know it’s Piel in those usages?"

but I'll just explain very quick
the קרב in Qal has "TO" after it אל or ל

Apparently you don’t know that some verbs can be used both as transitive (with and object) and intransitive (without an object), קרב in Qal is one of those verbs.

now when you see
כמו נגיד אקרבנו (job 31:37)

How do you know that this is a Piel, and not a Hophal? The consonantal text could be either.

קרבתי צדקתי (Isiah 46:13)

How do you know this is even a verb? The consonantal text could be a noun.

וקרב אתם (Ezekiel 37:17)
in this verse the vowels of the masoratic are according to the aramic
and also the one before it
therefore - the ר is with Patah - but it is Piel

Oh, so you say it’s a Piel because of the Masoretic points? But I’ve already told you I don’t count the Masoretic points as evidence because they’re wrong too often. You need to show me from the consonantal text, syntax and context, and in this verse, consonantal text, syntax and context indicate that קרב is a Qal imperative.

I said:
when we create it by the qal it has to be only by the BE form

and what you said is this

"Nope. Qal active—Genesis 20:4, 27:41, 37:18, 47:29, Exodus 3:5, 14:20, shall I give more verses?"

I answered your statement. This is why you should proofread before you post.

And my mistake was here when i wrote that line
because afterwards, in the same comment, i corrected myself and said that the Hiphil is actually can be both (also to do)

But the funny thing that you didn't even corrected me there about this.

Because I had already corrected that point earlier, so didn’t see the need to repeat myself.

You said
"In English we can. “I cause the table to come near” can be from my carrying the table, or I can have someone else carry the table so that it’s near."

++So thats whay you have trouble understanding the hebrew

Nope. It just shows that your claim is false.

About הוא הקים הבית

You said

"He caused to establish the house. He is the subject, not house"

I ask you now
Where did i say that the House is the subject

Your translation.

about האזין
i agree with what you say
but in this post i show the relation between Qal and Hiphil
So we see Hiphil with no Qal at all
and the Hiphil is not casual

(Stop being so sloppy with “casual”, “casual” ≠ “causal”. Proofread before posting.)

“Give ear” is causal.

I don’t deal with speculated roots, such as Qal אזן.

You still didn't support your claim
that an את can come after clear Hophal like הוקם

Look at my last response to Ste Walch.

How do you see this word להשחתו

2Kings 18:25
עתה המבלעדי ה עליתי על המקום הזה להשחתו
ה אמר אלי עלה על הארץ הזאת והשחיתה

My teacher in first year Hebrew emphasized that this is a Hitpael, and in the years since I’ve seen no reason to disagree with him on this.

והשיבום-והשבום

1Kings 14:28
ויהי מדי בא המלך בית ה ישאום הרצים והשיבום אל תא הרצים

2Chronicles 2:11
ויהי מדי בוא המלך בית ה באו הרצים ונשאום והשבום אל תא הרצים

Tell me, How do you see the והשבום and why there isn't YOD in it

Why do you fight against that one historian marked it as a passive, and another as an active?

ויחזיקו-ויחזקו

1Kings 1:9
ואמרו על אשר עזבו את ה אלקיהם אשר הוציא את אבתם מארץ מצרים ויחזקו באלהים אחרים וישתחו להם ויעבדם על כן הביא ה עליהם את כל הרעה הזאת

2Cronicles 7:22
ואמרו על אשר עזבו את ה אלקי אבתיהם אשר הוציאם מארץ מצרים ויחזיקו באלהים אחרים וישתחוו להם ויעבדום על כן הביא עליהם את כל הרעה הזאת

How do you see the ויחזקו and why there isn't YOD in it

Because the verb in 1 Kings is Qal, and in 2 Chronicles Hiphil.

I asked you before, but you didn’t answer, how many times have you read Tanakh through cover to cover? Even once? I wouldn’t be surprised that you haven’t read Tanakh even once. If you don’t answer this time, I’ll take it as evidence that you don’t know Tanakh because you haven’t read it through, not even once.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

How is everyone here understanding the 'passive'? … Just clarifying, as I'm getting a bit confused with everything that's being said

I don’t blame you, because there are two issues being discussed: 1) the passive and 2) the causative.

As I understand Avichai, as well as the Masoretes who applied the vowel points, is that when the actor who causes a passive action is present in a sentence, therefore the action is not passive. My response is that the action is passive, no matter if the actor who causes the passive action is present or not.

Does this clarify the issue?

Karl W. Randolph.

Somewhat. I think the confusion comes with understanding the difference between the passive voice, and the causative passive action.

In this case of Lev 9:17, if we were to take it as the passive voice, then it would effectively be saying that "He (Aaron) was presented" - because the passive voice means that the subject has the verbal action performed on it. But it's the offering that gets presented, so the verb קרב has to be acting upon its object. If the verb is passive voice, then the offering would become the subject: The offering was presented.

However, as the verb isn't feminine but masculine, unless we want to argue some sense of construction according to sense, then the offering can't be the subject, and therefore we can't really have a passive voice-verb understanding of קרב.

Nevertheless, that doesn't mean it couldn't be a causative passive action. The subject needn't have a physical role in presenting the offering, but caused it to be presented, which I think is what you're arguing for here, Karl.

To bring this across in English, it would probably be more He had the offering presented - so Aaron is still the subject, but he has caused the offering (accusative object) to be presented, rather than actively doing so himself.

I personally wouldn't refer to the above as passive, as it will cause confusion between the passive and active voices.

Here're a few English sentences that I think demonstrate the above:

He had him committed - Subject (He), object (him), and active voice, but passive action verb (had ... committed).
I had them liquidated (from the first Austin powers film, if anyone remembers that one :p) - Subject (I), object (them), and active voice, but passive action verb (had ... liquidated).
I had him removed - Subject (I), object (him), and active voice, but passive action verb (had ... removed).

In all the above, the subject has the action of the verb performed on the object, but doesn't actually take a physical role in doing so.

Hope that clears up as to how I am understanding the discussion. Feel free to correct me if/where I've gone wrong.

I agree with this. A hophal would suggest that an unknown agent (Moses or God) had Aaron present the offering. Translation would be awkward, but literally, Aaron was caused to present the offering. It would be subject to interpretation as to whether Moses had Aaron present the offering or whether God did.

[kwrandolph]

I agree. Connected with that is what is the form of the Hiphil?

Depends on whether we're talking plene or defective spellings :p

[smile] Good point.

Seriously, I’ve become a lot more sensitive to spellings and the meanings that they imply over the last few years. It’s given me more respect for the consonantal text and a recognition that it’s pretty accurate. But when the text gets pretty hairy, I’m not above checking the DSS and other sources for alternate readings. I’m very wary of any “corrections” where there’s no attestation to back them up.

Though I would usually expect the plene with the hiphil - השיאני (Gen 3:13).

Agreed.

To break this down a bit into a S-O-V word order:

We can make a S-O-V word order in Greek without changing the meaning, we can do that in Hebrew without changing the meaning, but we can’t do that in English, because changing the word order changes the meaning.

In Greek, the middle voice is for those verbs with an active meaning yet still have some sort of affect on the subject, usually for the benefit of the subject. Mostly the verbs are intransitive, but there are more than a few that are transitive.

Λουω/to wash is a good example - it can be active (ἔλουσεν 'he washed [their wounds]' cf Acts 16:33), middle (λούσεται 'he shall wash himself' Lev 14:8 LXX), or even passive (ἐλούσθης 'you were washed' Ezek 16:4).

Isn’t what you call “middle” really reflexive, which in Hebrew would take the Hitpael?

My understanding of reflexive is neither passive nor middle, rather active, with the subject being both the initiator and beneficiary of the action.

What I understand as “middle” is something different from reflexive and has a definite passive aspect to its action.

However, with your edit:

Ps: the Greek example you cited from Matthew 14 is an example of an Indo-European usage of language: the boss can say I wrote five letters today when all he did was dictate them. The secretary who took down the dictation and did the actual writing, can also say I wrote five letters today because she did the actual writing. So Herod was credited with beheading John the Baptist, even though a soldier (most likely) wielded the sword.

My understanding is that a Hophal would have been used had this been written in Biblical Hebrew.

Ah, then this does actually make sense, though I wonder whether such an understanding couldn't be applied to the hiphil, especially if there's a direct object involved?

Herod caused John the Baptist to be beheaded. “to be beheaded” is passive. “Caused” is active. Hence the middle because it has both active and passive in the same verbal construct. In English we have the active and passive separated out through the use of helper verbs. Hebrew doesn’t have helper verbs, so indicates the middle through subject—passive verb—object. That’s how I understand this construct.

As for Hiphil, it doesn’t have the passive—I don’t see how it would work.

Having a hophal meaning similar to Matt 14, would be changing the hophal to an active voice, but with an indication that a third party is doing the action of the verb. So in Lev 9:17, even though Aaron is credited with the bringing of the offering, it was a Levite priest that did the action of the verb instead.

That’s how I understand it.

I'm not quite sure how I'd categorise such a thing. Induced-active?

I call it “middle passive” not knowing what else to call it, because it’s using a passive verb, with an active element in the action.

This discussion with you is an example of why I need people like you on this list. My attempts at explaining this concept fell pretty flat until you brought it out. Thank you.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

S–Walch writes: "So in Lev 9:17, even though Aaron is credited with the bringing of the offering, it was a Levite priest that did the action of the verb instead."

I am sorry, but I fail to see this in the text.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Karl W. Randolph says: "You were talking about feeding, and רעה is the word about feeding. This is the Biblical Hebrew meaning, not the modern definition that you give."

I am sorry, but it is not clear to me what is "רעה is the word about feeding", what is this "about"? The Biblical Hebrew (nor any other Hebrew) meaning of רעה is not "feed".

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

Dear Avichai:

You have just disqualified yourself.

and for your question
I read the bible fully way more than once
of course not by its order
but all the books more than once

In other words, you cannot verify that you have read every word of Tanakh, not even to yourself. When you skip and jump like that, you may read some portions many times, and miss other portions. I don’t claim that you deliberately skipped some portions, rather when one jumps around like that, it’s almost impossible to verify that one has not missed some portions.

and a guy that have nothing to say
ask this kinda question
because i doubt if you read - and if so, i can see that you don't know how and don't understand
And I also understood now that youre peeking in the KJV now and then and probably get your definitions from it

Hahahaha! You’ve been on this forum too short a time to hear my personal history.

The reason I started reading Tanakh in Hebrew was because I had trouble understanding the archaic English used in the KJV. Further, I had the expectation that I might end up living among people whose native tongue was not English, therefore, in order correctly to communicate Bible to them accurately, I should do so directly from Hebrew, not through an intermediary language, like English.

I figure that the correct way to read Tanakh is to start in Genesis, and read all the way through to the end of 2 Chronicles. Then start again at Genesis. After about five times, I came to the realization that the Qatal and Yiqtol forms coded for neither tense nor aspect. Before ten times through, I gave up on the Masoretic points, because all too often the points indicate one meaning, while the consonantal text indicates another meaning. I have lost count of how many times I’ve read Tanakh in Hebrew, cover to cover.

As for word definitions—I made heavy use of Lisowski’s Handkonkordanz zum hebräischen alten Testament, today I also use electronic searches for finer grained analyses of word usages, which is how I recognize word meanings.

Your statement above is so far off base that it’s funny.

I look at the full verse and check
Ezekiel 2:2
ואפתח את פי ויאכילני את המגלה הזאת
And I opened my mouth and he יאכילני this scroll

You are not careful. Ezekiel 2:2 says ותבא בי רוח כאשר דבר אלי ותעמדני על רגלי ואשמע את מדבר אלי

Check it out for yourself

You examples indicate that the conjugations had different meanings in your understanding than they did in Biblical Hebrew. My interest here is Biblical Hebrew, not those other meanings

but when i'm writing here
even though i may use different words
i will still keep the biblical way

That’s the problem, you don’t use Biblical Hebrew definitions, grammar nor syntax, so your examples don’t come out as Biblical Hebrew.

and you l know why you think like that
because the English confuses you

What??! Are you claiming that I don’t know English? Really? That’s ridiculous!

Apparently you don’t know that some verbs can be used both as transitive (with and object) and intransitive (without an object), קרב in Qal is one of those verbs.

I forgot - thanks

The קרב is not one of them
and if i'm wrong, then i have no problem to admit
because i didnt check all the קרב Qal
But I don't think so

I mixed the Qal, which is intransitive, with the Hiphil and Hophal, which are transitive. I was not careful enough.

About כמו נגיד אקרבנו (job 31:37)

How do you know that this is a Piel, and not a Hophal? The consonantal text could be either

Here the קרב is not physically but metaphor like to keep close to the heart in the abstruct way as to respect and love

Abstraction has no bearing on the grammatical form.

So what are the rules that you use to recognize Piels? The rules have to be recognizable from syntax, because ancient readers didn’t have the Masoretic points to guide them. So how do you think the ancients recognized Piels?

find other verses like this that start with two noun with no WAW between them - as an appositoin

Look at 1 Chronicles 1 and following—names are nouns. (Is that one of the sections that you skipped?)

Have you forgotten the construct state, where a first noun is in construct with the following noun? Look at Isaiah 46:13…

קרבתי--------------Verb - i brought - getting something close

Or noun, indicating bringing up as an action noun, in construct with צדקה another noun. This is taken in context with verse 12 which starts with an imperative.

you work in the way of dismissing others' interpretations

I’m a firm believer that there are absolute truths, and that science is one way to come to some (not by a long shot all) absolute truths. Science is based on observation, not interpretation.

Linguistics is a branch of science, dealing with the human use of language. While it is true that humans often use language in a fuzzy manner, a careful and correct use of language will often indicate only one meaning is intended in a statement. It’s my intention to try to understand that one meaning that was intended.

One of the problems with Biblical Hebrew is that it’s not well known, not even by those who call themselves experts. It’s well enough known that we get the general idea, but come to disagreements when dealing with specifics.

you change your rules of the syntax and explain it in a sneaky way because you don't have an answer

Have you considered that maybe you just don’t understand English? That though you do fairly well in English, yet you still misunderstand what I wrote? That while I have not changed, you have just misunderstood?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

aavichai wrote:
The Hiphil of אכל is from the meaning from Qal אכל
i dont care what the translation is
אכל is to eat - and האכיל is to put food into someone mouth (I call it feeding)
…
Now Ezekiell ויאכילני את המגילה הזאת again
ויאכילני=ויאכיל אותי
what is the difference from this to what i wrote?

The angel didn’t put the scroll into Ezekiel’s mouth. He caused Ezekiel to eat it. The same with the other verses to which you can point.

Feeding means putting food in someone's mouth only if they are babies. If they are still suckling it means breastfeeding, or bottle feeding. If they are a toddler it means putting them in a high chair and setting food on their tray.
If they're teenagers, "honey did you feed the kids?", "Yes dear, I ordered Domino's."
If they are potential business partners, "John, did you feed our guests", "yes, I took them out for the finest steak in town"

My point is feeding is causative semantically. This is why I used it as an example, so that readers could appreciate what a causative actually is. The Ezekiel example is a good one for what S_Walch was talking about: the angel had him eat the scroll, but it could just as easily mean that the angel fed him. Maybe the angel broke the scroll like one breaks bread in a ritualistic manner. All of these are possibilities.

[Jemoh66]

I look at the full verse and check
Ezekiel 2:2
ואפתח את פי ויאכילני את המגלה הזאת
And I opened my mouth and he יאכילני this scroll

You are not careful. Ezekiel 2:2 says ותבא בי רוח כאשר דבר אלי ותעמדני על רגלי ואשמע את מדבר אלי

Check it out for yourself

tsk tsk Karl, that's not nice. It's Ezekiel 3:2,

וָאֶפְתַּ֖ח אֶת־ פִּ֑י וַיַּ֣אֲכִלֵ֔נִי אֵ֖ת הַמְּגִלָּ֥ה הַזֹּֽאת

I opened my mouth and he fed me this scroll.

[Jemoh66]

Jemoh66 Said:
Feeding means putting food in someone's mouth only if they are babies. If they are still suckling it means breastfeeding, or bottle feeding. If they are a toddler it means putting them in a high chair and setting food on their tray.
If they're teenagers, "honey did you feed the kids?", "Yes dear, I ordered Domino's."
If they are potential business partners, "John, did you feed our guests", "yes, I took them out for the finest steak in town"

I accept what you say
that a charity group can feed the people and it doesn't mean that they put the food into the poor men mouth

but notice the difference
like you said - the basic meaning is to put the food into one's mouth
but the other's feeding is not to cause them to eat
but to put food infront of someone's for the purpose of him to eat
but it is not causing them
the mother can put food on the table and say: i'm feeding my kid
but thats that - only about the purpose for her kid to eat
if the kid or the poor men eat or not - has nothing to do with the actions of the charity group or the mother

In this case it is said that Ezekiel opened his mouth and then he was fed
and that brings us to the conclusion that he was passively and physically fed (by the hand)
and not that the scroll was given infront of him to eat after he opened his mouth or even after we saw that he was told to eat it before he opened his mouth
because if we want to understand the feeding in the "purpose way"
the the יאכילני should come first, in the same verse that he was told to eat the scroll

I agree with you. The fact that Ezekiel opened his mouth makes the strongest case for a literal feeding. What I said was partly to continue bolstering my argument that causative is a tool for generating a broad range of meanings, which are further clarified by context. It's really ironic that you chose Ezekiel 3 as your example. As I so often do, I read the entire chapter, a passage that stirs up a lot of emotions in me. Anyway, I decided to read it in Swahili. When I came across the phrase, "I came to the exiles who lived at Tel Aviv." In Swahili, exiles are "those who were caused to move away". hama, move (away)--> hamisha, to force someone to move, to exile, to evict-->hamishwa, to be exiled, to be evicted-->waliohamishwa, those who were caused to move away, or as a noun the caused to move away ones. BH exhibits this kind of process all the time.