שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

[Isaac Fried]

I am just recalling the opposites to הרחיק; the two הקריב, of Gen. 12:11
וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר הִקְרִיב לָבוֹא מִצְרָיְמָה
KJV: "And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt"
with הִקְרִיב = היא-קר-היא-ב for Abram bringing himself nearer to Egypt.
and of Ex. 14:10
וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם וְהִנֵּה מִצְרַיִם נֹסֵעַ אַחֲרֵיהֶם
KJV: "And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them"
with הִקְרִיב = היא-קר-היא-ב here for Pharaoh bringing himself nearer to the children of Israel.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Another pertinent example to an "hophal" verbal form.
Lamentations 5:5
עַל צַוָּארֵנוּ נִרְדָּפְנוּ יָגַעְנוּ וְלֹא הוּנַח לָנוּ
KJV: "Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest."
NIV: "Those who pursue us are at our heels; we are weary and find no rest.
with הוּנַח = הוּא-נח, but who is this הוּא, 'he'?
Further: נִרְדָּפְנוּ = אני-רדף-אנוּ, יָגַעְנוּ = יגע-אנוּ

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

Dear Avichai:

But I read your comment
and it seemes to me that you have failed to understand the hebrew syntax

This is amusing, as it is context, in particular syntax, that is used by dyslexics like myself as a way to compensate for our dyslexia.

Which leads me to a question, how many times have you read Tanakh in Hebrew, cover to cover, all the way through?

Also a second question, from where did you learn Biblical Hebrew syntax? One reason I ask this is because you didn’t realize that what was previously taught as Biblical Hebrew, was in reality medieval, Tiberian Hebrew and not Biblical Hebrew.

And other than the syntax -
I think you have also have misunderstanding about the participle

I have been told that already by the time of the DSS that verbal conjugations were for tense, with the Qatal used for past action, participle for present action, and Yiqtol for future action. There are indicators in late, post Babylonian Exile writings, that is was starting to go that way, as the writers were not native speakers of Hebrew.

Prior to the Babylonian Exile, the use of the participle referred mostly to the actor, a noun, or the action as a gerund, again a noun.

… the hebrew syntax xan be complicated to understand even to hebrew speakers (no matter modern or not - the basic syntax is the same)

This statement shows that you are not an expert on Biblical Hebrew syntax, as the syntax for modern Hebrew is different from that for Biblical Hebrew. The grammars of the two languages are different, and that affects their syntaxes.

Do you remember that fraud that claimed to be a memorial about Josiah’s repair of the temple? It was the syntax that first alerted me that it was a fake.

We shouldn't care about the relation of Hebrew-English
just about the relation between Hebrew-Hebrew and English-English

Exactly, and that’s why I don’t consider translations, even those done by professionals, as evidence for Hebrew usage.

… (location, tense & whatelse)

You keep forgetting that whereas modern Hebrew has tense, Biblical Hebrew doesn’t have tense. Don’t you recognize that when you keep referring to tense in relation to Biblical Hebrew, that you thereby show that you don’t know Biblical Hebrew well?

You said:
"But even in English, the helper verb is called a helper verb precisely because it doesn’t define the action, it just modifies the action. It doesn’t become the main verb."
The action is the bringing. The Hebrew verb expresses the action. The Hebrew conjugation expresses how the action was done

Then why did you claim that the helper verb was the main verb in the sentence?

I say now:
The helper-verb, When it is used in the translaition to English (cause)
it is called Helper-verb because it is not shown in Hebrew
but don't look at the term (help) and see it as "The Not Important" one

A helper verb is called a helper verb because of its function in English.

Because the Action-"verb" (bringing) is represented as "BROUGHT"
in both passive transltion (The offering was caused to be BROUGHT)
and active translation (He caused the offering to be BROUGHT)

Don’t you recognize that in both sentences that you wrote above, that the main verb “to be BROUGHT” is both causative and passive? That it doesn’t matter how you translate the helper verb?

the difference between the Hiphil and Hophal in your view
is this (and I use the "Cause" method)

Active - He caused the offering to come up
Passive - He caused the offering to be brought

The standard way of writing the active in English is “he brought the offering”.

In English there is no casual conjugation

Do you know what “grammaticalize” or “grammaticalization” mean?

(You need to be careful with your spelling—there’s a difference between “casual” and “causal”. In this context, I realize you meant “causal”.)

Yes, this discussion has taken up too much of my time too, so I’m in no hurry for your response.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

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.

[Kirk Lowery]

Okay, everyone! I think we've about exhausted the possibilities of this thread. Let's not descend into a meta-discussion of our attitudes and other ad hominem comments.

Kirk

[S_Walch]

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.

[kwrandolph]

Dear Avichai

I decided not to comment anymore about this subject
because I find myself spending two hours or sometimes even more
trying to write in english alot of my explaining
and I need this time for other things

It wouldn’t take so long, if you didn’t make such long, long postings.

I’ve been spending way too much time too, so I was looking forward to you not responding so quickly.

Incidentally, the sentences that you write below are informal, spoken sentences, not formal literary style.

I just say something general about the Hiphil in General…
Now, I'll use some roots

Now I take the root אכל - eat
he ate - הוא אכל
Now I turn it to Hiphil - האכיל - this is biblical
אני האכלתי את הילד
I fed the child ----- Here the english uses another verb - but it doesn't matter

The Hebrew you wrote above means, “I caused the boy to be eaten by me.” You wrote the Hophal, not the Hiphil.

The Hiphil is found twice, Ezekiel 3:2 and Psalm 81:17.

To say, “I fed/feed/will feed the boy” is אני רעיתי את הילד

Now I take the root שמע hear
he heard - הוא שמע
i turm it to Hiphil - השמיע - i think in english for this is "to voice"

Nope, “to voice” is לתת את קולו

הוא השמיע דברים לקהל - he voiced things to the crowd

Translation: “He caused the assembly to listen (to) expressions.” Actually that’s not good Biblical Hebrew, better Biblical Hebrew would be הוא השמיע את הדברים האלה אל הקהל

There are roots that even when they are in active forms - they are not so active
for example נפל - to fall - Qal
i fell - the form is active in english and hebrew
but the falling is unwillingly - so it is not so active

Willing or not willing has no bearing on whether or not it is active or passive.

So in Hiphil
he dropped the statue - הוא הפיל את הפסל
He caused the statue to fall - but what does it mean - does the statue falls willingly

As I wrote above, “willing” has nothing to do with active.

did he cause it to fall

Yep.

or caused it to be fallen

Nope.

the root it self is tricky

Nope. “To fall” is a simple action. The verb itself is intransitive, but the causative makes it transitive.

we translate that "to fall" - also in hebrew
but the falling is not a pure active verb by its meaning

A simple action is a simple action, and the verb that describes a simple action is active. Purely active.

By the way, if you want to mention someone dropping something, the verb most likely is Qal שמט.

root שוב - retun/ bring back /

Means simply “to return”. “Bring back” is the Hiphil meaning, literally “cause to return”.

Hiphil השיב
He return the boy his food
הוא השיב לילד את האכל שלו

This example isn’t Biblical Hebrew at all. If you want to say “He returned the boy’s food to the boy” Biblical Hebrew would be הוא השיב את מאכל הילד אל הילד or something similar. That is what you wanted to say, right?

the root נכר

This is a difficult one, as there are close roots like כרה and כרת which in Niphal, Hiphal or Hophal can be mistaken for נכר. Then there are possible roots of כיר or כור, as well as a possible homograph נכר. Thus, the form נכר can be the Niphal of כרה and נכרת can be “he was cut” or “you are estranged” depending on the context.

Hiphil - הכיר - to know - to meet

In Biblical Hebrew prior to the Babylonian Exile it meant “to recognize”. Though in later Hebrew, has the idea of learning, e.g. Nehemiah 13:24.

Now the root ישב - sit

In Biblical Hebrew had the meaning of “to settle down”. Biblical Hebrew didn’t have a term specifically for sitting, therefore often used the term for settling down for sitting.

You also need to learn more English. “To sit” and “to be sitting” mean the same thing. Both are active.

Now I will talk about the root קרב - close - to get close
התקרב - got close (or closer)
קרב in QAL - got close (or closer)
קרב in Piel - make something close (or closer)

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

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

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

And the fact that you translte it in both way make you mistake
because like i show here
not every sentenced can be see in both ways or more ways

I translate the Qal just one way.

Hiphil - הקריב
הוא הקריב אותו
or he made him to be close - or be closer
cause him to be close

In English this has the meaning of motion from far to near. A more literal translation would be “he caused him to come up” or “he caused him to approach”. In other words, this is a simple active.

that is the right translation IN THIS CASE

and NOT -
he made him to get close (as an action that the object do)
He caused him to get close

Again because you don’t know English that well, you didn’t realize that “he made him to be close” and “he made him to get close” mean the same thing. Both refer to the same action of coming from far to near.

I think maybe it is connected to the object if it is passive or not
i can say that i cause the table (to be) close
but i can't say that i cause the table get close (unless he is alive)
i dont know, maybe in english you can

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.

But we also know in the bible
dont remeber when - i just remember
והקרב את אהרן אחיך

Exodus 28:1 Cause Aaron and his sons be made to come up unto you…

but in this case
הקרב את העלה
it is not that the offering to come up
But the offering is being closer - passively - the offering is always passive…The offering will always stays passive - both in an active sentence and passiv esentence

Which is why it’s Hophal, not Hiphil.

the Hiphil here
actually work - not commonly - like the Piel form
and not the Qal
הוא קרב Kerev - Piel

What makes you think it’s Piel? Why?

and you can see that the קרב Qal form doesnt get את after it

That’s because the Qal of קרב is an intransitive verb.

but the Piel - just like the Hiphil - both get את after them
because in this case - thay are borthers

Please give examples of such Piels as found in Tanakh.

הוא הקים את הבית - establish - never mind my translation if its good or not
he cause the house to be establish
but not caused the house to establish

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

Your following examples either showed similar confusion, or were not Biblical Hebrew, so I didn’t see it necessary to comment on them further.

Some causal verbs are not even in Hphil
like i said that הקריב and קרב in piel have the same basic meaning (thin line maybe)
and if so - we can say that קרב piel is also casual

How many times do I have to tell you that casual ≠ causal? Once or twice can be a typo or a misunderstanding. But many times is a sign of sloppy thinking.

What makes you think that the Piel and Hiphil impart the same meanings to verbs? Can you give Biblical examples, listing chapter and verse from the Bible?

הוא הבריח את האויב
he cause the enemy to run
he caused the enemy to be run? maybe to be running?

This form is used once, 1 Chronicles 8:13, “…they caused the settlers of Gath to flee…”

for example
האזין - to listen
there is no Qal for this
why האזין is in Hiphil

This looks like an example of a verb derived from a noun, “to give ear”

but שמע is in qal

Because שמע is the normal verb for “to listen”.

So i'm taking a break
and check for yuorself many Hiphils and see how you understand it
always casual?

Yep, always causal.

always be translated both ways?

Nope.

and so on....

So bye for now
Avichai Cohen

This posting by you makes me think that you don’t know Biblical Hebrew very well, if at all. You had so many examples that are not Biblical Hebrew. You gave definitions to words that are not Biblical. So many of your English translations are wrong. To prevent some those problems in the future, you should list verses where those forms are found, so that you have them correct.

In closing, I have spent way too much time on this. I want to be careful with what I write, so I often proofread what I write, often a few times, to try to make sure that I correctly communicate what I want to express. I looked up many of the examples that you posted, to make sure that my responses are correct, which took too much time.

So take your time to respond.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

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 think your examples are better than mine.

That’s my basic understanding of the uses of the Hophal where the person causing the passive action is listed in the verse. That’s also my understanding of why the passive verb is conjugated according to the actor when he’s present in the verse rather than according to the actee, the recipient of the action.

Karl W. Randolph.

[S_Walch]

Seems to me that the understanding of the hophal is what's causing most of the confusion here.

Gonna use the examples in English, as we're more or less going to understand them better (or at least I am!).

For most, the hophal doesn't indicate passive action, but the passive voice of the causative action, as in the following:

I was committed

Subject has the 'acting' of the verb performed on it - this is 'passive' in most people's understanding, and passive = hophal.

By this it isn't that the subject has a non-active role in the verb, just that the verb affects the subject. Or in the case of 'presenting':

To present something = active (qal, hiphil) = He presented the offering.
To present oneself = passive (niphal, hophal) = The offering was presented.

What you're saying above, isn't that the hophal is indicating that the subject is having the verb performed on itself, but that the hophal is indicating a non-active role of the subject in the 'acting' of the verb. But this would still have the hophal as indicating the active voice (the passive action is affecting the object), and not the passive voice (that is, the passive action is affecting the subject).

In this case of קרב, this would be giving a different understanding of the verb itself, and not of the hiphil/hophal, as such when the verb קרב is being used in a causative way, it isn't just indicating bring near, bring, offer, present, but rather/also have something brought near, have something brought, have something offered, have something presented.

In this case, the hiphil would mean He had the offering brought (active voice), and hophal would mean He brought Himself (passive voice).

To use an example from the NT, we have Matt 14:10:

καὶ πέμψας ἀπεκεφάλισεν τὸν Ἰωάννην ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ·
And having sent, He had John beheaded in the prison

In the case of the verb ἀποκεφαλίζω, it doesn't just mean "to behead", but also "to have someone beheaded" - in the above, the verb is aorist, active, yet Herod is not the one doing the beheading. So even though he's the instigator of the beheading, Herod isn't the one that physically does the beheading. The passive of this would be He had himself beheaded.

This is what we have in Lev 9:17 - Aaron is the instigator of having the offering presented, but isn't the one presenting the offering.

However in the case of causing the offering to be presented, this would still be hiphil (active), because the hophal (passive) would indicate that Aaron had himself presented. So though he is the instigator of the verbal-action, he isn't an active participant in the verbal-action.

This though would be a different understanding of the words meaning, and not between hiphil/hophal.

Therefore what I think is to be understood (if I'm understanding what you're saying Karl), is that the causative forms of קרב don't just mean bring near, bring, present, but also to have something brought near, to have something brought, to have something presented.

Several different English examples:
to imprison someone / to have someone imprisoned
to kill someone / to have someone killed
to wash someone / to have someone washed
to eat something / to have something eaten

Or it could be a different understanding of the hophal, in that the hophal has nothing to do with the passive voice at all (therefore isn't affecting the subject), but is still active voice, yet indicates that the subject has a non-participatory role within the verbal action, therefore is passive action - the subject actively instigates the verb, but doesn't actually perform the verb himself.

That is how I'm understanding things at the moment. Feel free to point out if/where I've erred

[kwrandolph]

Seems to me that the understanding of the hophal is what's causing most of the confusion here.

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

Gonna use the examples in English, as we're more or less going to understand them better (or at least I am!).

For most, the hophal doesn't indicate passive action, but the passive voice of the causative action, as in the following:

I was committed

Subject has the 'acting' of the verb performed on it - this is 'passive' in most people's understanding, and passive = hophal.

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.
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.)

By this it isn't that the subject has a non-active role in the verb, just that the verb affects the subject. Or in the case of 'presenting':

To present something = active (qal, hiphil) = He presented the offering.
To present oneself = passive (niphal, hophal) = The offering was presented.

Ah, in English, To present oneself is an active, in Hebrew would be conjugated as a Hitpael.
He was presented is the binary passive.
I had him presented… is the middle passive, I had being active, him presented passive. (Usually in English we’d say I had him introduced…)

In this case of קרב, this would be giving a different understanding of the verb itself, and not of the hiphil/hophal, as such when the verb קרב is being used in a causative way, it isn't just indicating bring near, bring, offer, present, but rather/also have something brought near, have something brought, have something offered, have something presented.

In this case, the hiphil would mean He had the offering brought (active voice), and hophal would mean He brought Himself (passive voice).

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.

This though would be a different understanding of the words meaning, and not between hiphil/hophal.

I understand it as the differences between Hiphil/Hophal.

That is how I'm understanding things at the moment. Feel free to point out if/where I've erred

You erred?

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.

Just my 2¢

Karl W. Randolph.

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.

On a philosophical level, that the Masoretes pointed so many Hophals as Hiphils is evidence that they were thinking according to Western (Greek) philosophy instead of according to Hebrew, Biblical thinking. Ideas brought out in the Talmud indicate the same conclusion.