B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

In Gen 29:2
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/c0129.htm

ב וַיַּ֞רְא וְהִנֵּ֧ה בְאֵ֣ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֗ה וְהִנֵּה־שָׁ֞ם שְׁלֹשָׁ֤ה עֶדְרֵי־צֹאן֙ רֹֽבְצִ֣ים עָלֶ֔יהָ כִּ֚י מִן־הַבְּאֵ֣ר הַהִ֔וא יַשְׁק֖וּ הָֽעֲדָרִ֑ים וְהָאֶ֥בֶן גְּדֹלָ֖ה עַל־פִּ֥י הַבְּאֵֽר׃

This page https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/29-2.htm
Identifies Yashku as hiphil imperfect as does the Groves Wheeler Morphology that bibleworks uses. (Groves says @vhi3mp meaning verb, hiphil, imperfect, 3mp).

I can see looking at bibleworks, that the root shin kuf heh, occurs only once in the niphal, once in pual, and the rest (dozens), in the hiphil. And in the hiphil it means "to give to drink". (or I guess to cause to water, / cause to drink), since hiphil is causative.

I know Groves Wheeler doesn't think so and neither does biblehub.com(whatever that's based on), but is it possible though that there might be a Paal form "to drink".

And that this word (yashku) in this verse might be using a paal form, and thus when it says יַשְׁק֖וּ הָֽעֲדָרִ֑ים

if we consider if it's saying

A) "the flocks drink".

B) "they/ the (unnamed 3mp subject) waters the flocks" (hiphil)

Is it possible that "A" could be legitimate and it could be a Paal.. ?

Maybe it doesn't fit with the paal imperfect form, though the paal imperfect has so many different patterns, I find it hard to tell sometimes. And it doesn't seem like it fits the hiphil imperfect form either since it has no hirik or yud.

Ralph Zakaria

Yes the Pathak in the prefix is the tell.
It's a weak verb (Final hey) that's why there's no hirik. The causative is not only common, it fits the context. Notice Jacob removes the stone and Waters the docks himself.

וַיִּגַּ֣שׁ יַעֲקֹ֗ב וַיָּ֤גֶל אֶת־הָאֶ֙בֶן֙ מֵעַל֙ פִּ֣י הַבְּאֵ֔ר וַיַּ֕שְׁקְ אֶת־צֹ֥אן לָבָ֖ן אֲחִ֥י אִמֹּֽו׃

I read this ישקו as a Hophal. It’s just too numerous to count, but time after time I notice what others call Hiphils but lacking the internal yods. In these cases the Hophal can be understood.

There are two uses I have noticed of the Hophal as a causative passive:

(subject) is caused to (action) (the causation is passive and often the action as well)
(subject) causes (passive action) to be done (active causation but the action is passive)

Both are passive, but in different ways.

In verse 2 we see an example of the first use of the Hophal, and in verse 10 an example of the second use.

Karl W. Randolph.

Jemoh66 wrote:Yes the Pathak in the prefix is the tell.
It's a weak verb (Final hey) that's why there's no hirik. The causative is not only common, it fits the context. Notice Jacob removes the stone and Waters the docks himself.

Ah, thanks yes you're right, re context and grammar. I see all examples of a hiphil imperfect 3ms with III-heh have no yud added and no h.
irik either.

e.g. these hiphil imperfect 3mp, as you say, no yud, no hirik.

Psa 106:43 @vhi3mp+SxxxxJxCxAxExHxNxx,מרה, (in text),יַמְר֣וּ
Neh 10:39 @vhi3mp+SxxxxJxCxAxExHxNxx,עלה, (in text),יַעֲל֙וּ

and I see it with some other hiphil forms with III-Heh too, besides hiphil imperfect 3ms.

But I see one example of a hiphil imperfect 3ms with a hirik added!

Job 5:7 @vhi3mp+SxxxxJxCxAxExHxNxx,גבהּ, (in text),יַגְבִּ֥יהוּ

any idea why? I don't know if the heh having a mapik in it has anything to do with it?

The Septuagint translates ישקו & השקו into ἐπότιζον, this word as no information on the word study tool
but it is possible to correct through a cognitive translation, שק/ψυχῇ and צאן/κτήνη.

ἔψυχον - verb 3rd pl imperf ind act

Gen 29:3
השקו את־הצאן
πότιζον τὰ πρόβατα (Septuagint)
ἔψυχον τὰ οἷ-κτήνεα (Cognitive)

The Septuagint translation here inserts 'τὰ, else it is translating from a version
that reads 'את העדרים', the cognate of עדר is ἀθρόος 'crowds, heaps', עדר
also עדר > θρόος > θρόϝος > πρόβατα 'Cattle, flocks, herds, of all four-footed'
θρόϝος, in Mycenaean is To‐ro‐w hence ταῦρος /שׁוֹר/תּוֹר, also cognate of σωρά

Gen 29:2
ישקו העדרים
ἐπότιζον τὰ ποίμνια (Septuagint)
διαψυχον οἷ-σωρῶν ( Cognitive )

י/δια then perhaps ישק/διαψύχω see נפש/ἀναψύχω (2 Samuel 16:14) .

Well the first thing I noticed is the hey is not apocopated. So it is behaving like a strong verb. Most likely an older form preserved in Job because it's poetry. That's just of the to of my head. I'll look into this now a little closer.

Gen. 29:2-3
וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה בְאֵר בַּשָּׂדֶה וְהִנֵּה שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶדְרֵי צֹאן רֹבְצִים עָלֶיהָ כִּי מִן הַבְּאֵר הַהִוא יַשְׁקוּ הָעֲדָרִים וְהָאֶבֶן גְּדֹלָה עַל פִּי הַבְּאֵר וְנֶאֶסְפוּ שָׁמָּה כָל הָעֲדָרִים וְגָלְלוּ אֶת הָאֶבֶן מֵעַל פִּי הַבְּאֵר וְהִשְׁקוּ אֶת הַצֹּאן וְהֵשִׁיבוּ אֶת הָאֶבֶן עַל פִּי הַבְּאֵר לִמְקֹמָהּ
Is there any doubt as to what יַשְׁקוּ means here?

Gen. 29:10
וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר רָאָה יַעֲקֹב אֶת רָחֵל בַּת לָבָן אֲחִי אִמּוֹ וְאֶת-צֹאן לָבָן אֲחִי אִמּוֹ וַיִּגַּשׁ יַעֲקֹב וַיָּגֶל אֶת הָאֶבֶן מֵעַל פִּי הַבְּאֵר וַיַּשְׁקְ אֶת צֹאן לָבָן אֲחִי אִמּוֹ
Is there any doubt as to what וַיַּשְׁקְ means here?

Isaac Fried, Boston University