Isaiah 53:10 two grammar questions

[Kenneth Greifer]

Isaiah 53:10
וַיהוָ֞ה חָפֵ֤ץ דַּכְּאוֹ֙ הֶֽחֱלִ֔י אִם־תָּשִׂ֤ים אָשָׁם֙ נַפְשׁ֔וֹ יִרְאֶ֥ה זֶ֖רַע יַאֲרִ֣יךְ יָמִ֑ים וְחֵ֥פֶץ יְהוָ֖ה בְּיָד֥וֹ יִצְלָֽח׃
It is often translated as "and the Lord desired his crushing דכאו, He made him sick (wounded) החלו..."

Shouldn't it say "and the Lord desired his being crushed" instead of "his crushing" if that is what it actually said?
And shouldn't the word be החלהו with הו at the end of it if it says "and He made him sick or wounded"?

[Schubert]

I see little difference between the two English renditions you refer to. In both cases they reflect "his" as being the direct object of the crushing -- although I suppose "his crushing" could in English also have the sense of "his" as the subject of the crushing.

As for הֶֽחֱלִ֔י, Gesenius (para. 75ii) refers to this as an unusual form for the Hiphil perfect. As you noted there is no direct object pronominal suffix on the verb. I see the object as implicit; i.e., carried over from the immediately preceeding Piel infinitive.

[Jason Hare]

Isaiah 53:10
וַיהוָ֞ה חָפֵ֤ץ דַּכְּאוֹ֙ הֶֽחֱלִ֔י אִם־תָּשִׂ֤ים אָשָׁם֙ נַפְשׁ֔וֹ יִרְאֶ֥ה זֶ֖רַע יַאֲרִ֣יךְ יָמִ֑ים וְחֵ֥פֶץ יְהוָ֖ה בְּיָד֥וֹ יִצְלָֽח׃
It is often translated as "and the Lord desired his crushing דכאו, He made him sick (wounded) החלו..."

Shouldn't it say "and the Lord desired his being crushed" instead of "his crushing" if that is what it actually said?
And shouldn't the word be החלהו with הו at the end of it if it says "and He made him sick or wounded"?

Why "his being crushed"? It isn't passive. It's piel (infinitive construct (לְ)דַכֵּא), and the suffix is objective. It means "to crush him." Why should we translate the active as if it were passive?

The form הֶחֱלִי is an older form. Remember that all III-Heh roots are in reality III-Yod (except those that have mapik). The older הֶחֱלִי became הֶחֱלָה by the time of the biblical language. However, poetic language often presents older forms, as we have here. There is no object on this verb. It is to be understood. I agree that it would be "better" if it were explicit, but such is the world of Hebrew poetry (of which prophecy is one example).

[Kenneth Greifer]

Jason,
I understand that it says "his crushing" or "crushing him." I am just saying that it doesn't make sense that way. It would be better if it was a passive form of the verb that meant "his being crushed."
It should say "and the Lord desired his being crushed" instead of "and the Lord desired his crushing or crushing him." "His crushing" sounds like the man will crush something and not that he will be crushed. That is how it sounds to me.

What is a mapik that you mentioned in your explanation?

[Jason Hare]

I understand that it says "his crushing" or "crushing him." I am just saying that it doesn't make sense that way. It would be better if it was a passive form of the verb that meant "his being crushed."
It should say "and the Lord desired his being crushed" instead of "and the Lord desired his crushing or crushing him." "His crushing" sounds like the man will crush something and not that he will be crushed. That is how it sounds to me.

The problem is in translating it that way. It's like saying "I wanted to see him" but translating it as "I wanted his seeing." Of course it sounds absurd. You're translating it strangely. "YHWH desired to crush him." That doesn't sound odd at all. The suffix is the OBJECT of the verb.

What is a mapik that you mentioned in your explanation?

Think of the difference between these two verbs:

בָּנָה he built becomes בָּנִ֫יתִי I built (losing the heh).

גָּבַהּ he was/became high/tall becomes גָּבַ֫הְתִּי I was/became high/tall (keeping the heh).

Why? Because the heh mapik (הּ) is a consonant in its own right. It doesn't drop out of the word when it goes into other forms. It is a real root letter. The heh in בנה is not original to the root. The root is actually בנ״י (bet-nun-yod), whereas the other word's root is גב״ה (gimel-bet-heh). Notice that it even has its infinitive as לִגְבֹּהַּ (since it doesn't lose its heh even in the infinitive). Hebrew also has a verb גָּבָה that has its infinitive as לִגְבּוֹת and perfect 1cs as גָּבִ֫יתִי.

Mapik is the dot placed in heh to indicate that it is a real consonant (not a vowel letter). Have you noticed that "to her" is written as לָהּ? The heh is a consonant. It would be transliterated as lāh (rather than as lâ [as it would be if it were a vowel letter]).

[Jason Hare]

See Gesenius §14 for some discussion of the mapik.