B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Judges 13:5 begins

כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן

Would someone please explain the parts of speech of the 3rd and 4th word? I assume that the third is an active participle, but I really don't understand the spelling of the 4th.

Thank you.

nili95 wrote:Judges 13:5 begins

כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן

Would someone please explain the parts of speech of the 3rd and 4th word? I assume that the third is an active participle, but I really don't understand the spelling of the 4th.

Thank you.

Jay:

It all depends on whether you accept the Masoretic points or not. According to the points, both are participles.

If you read an unpointed text, as I do, the first is an adjective describing the woman, and the second a 2nd person Qatal Qal feminine singular.

The impetus for reading both as participles is the parallel to Isaiah 7:14:
הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנו אל
Behold the pregnant virgin that is giving birth to a son and calling his name ‘God with us’
Those are all participles used as adjectives.

But the reason I read the second verb as a Qatal Qal is because of the context of verse 3 where that is the case.

Karl W. Randolph.

kwrandolph wrote:

nili95 wrote:Judges 13:5 begins

כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן

Would someone please explain the parts of speech of the 3rd and 4th word? I assume that the third is an active participle, but I really don't understand the spelling of the 4th.

Thank you.

Jay:

It all depends on whether you accept the Masoretic points or not. According to the points, both are participles.

If you read an unpointed text, as I do, the first is an adjective describing the woman, and the second a 2nd person Qatal Qal feminine singular.

The impetus for reading both as participles is the parallel to Isaiah 7:14:
הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנו אל
Behold the pregnant virgin that is giving birth to a son and calling his name ‘God with us’
Those are all participles used as adjectives.

But the reason I read the second verb as a Qatal Qal is because of the context of verse 3 where that is the case.

Karl W. Randolph.

Thank you. A couple of points if I may.

First, regarding וְיֹלַדְתְּ ...

I would think that the options would be ילדת or יולדת, reflecting יָלַדְתְּ or יוֹלֶדֶת, being the 2nd person feminine singular past tense or the feminine singular present tense. If it is, indeed, "2nd person Qatal Qal feminine singular" would it not be rendered with a vav reflecting the presence of a kholam malei? Or are we dealing with a defective spelling of yoledet?

Second, I do not agree that almah is properly translated as 'virgin,' but I suspect that Isaiah 7:14 has been discussed more than once already.

Thank you again for your response/

nili95 wrote:Thank you. A couple of points if I may.

First, regarding וְיֹלַדְתְּ ...

I would think that the options would be ילדת or יולדת, reflecting יָלַדְתְּ or יוֹלֶדֶת, being the 2nd person feminine singular past tense or the feminine singular present tense. If it is, indeed, "2nd person Qatal Qal feminine singular" would it not be rendered with a vav reflecting the presence of a kholam malei? Or are we dealing with a defective spelling of yoledet?

Of the nine places in the Tanakh where we have the 2nd person feminine singular of ילד (Gen 3:16, 16:11; Judg 13:3, 5, 7; 1 Sam 4:20, Jer 15:10, Ezek 16:20), none of them contain the Kholam malei in the spelling. So it's inclusion/exclusion would not help in deducing how it should be understood.

Second, I do not agree that almah is properly translated as 'virgin,' but I suspect that Isaiah 7:14 has been discussed more than once already.

You'd be correct

Just one thing to consider on this above point however; Genesis 24:14, 16, 43. I'll let you take it from there

S_Walch wrote: Of the nine places in the Tanakh where we have the 2nd person feminine singular of ילד (Gen 3:16, 16:11; Judg 13:3, 5, 7; 1 Sam 4:20, Jer 15:10, Ezek 16:20), none of them contain the Kholam malei in the spelling. So it's inclusion/exclusion would not help in deducing how it should be understood.

I should have checked that myself. Thank you.

So how should I read וְיָלַדְתְּ (as in Judges 13:5) versus וְיֹלַדְתְּ (as in Judges 13:5,7) versus וְיֹלֶדֶת (as in Isaiah 7:14)?

S_Walch wrote: Just one thing to consider on this above point however; Genesis 24:14, 16, 43. I'll let you take it from there

You're referring to the maiden/damsel Rebekah, the young woman who has not known a man?

nili95 wrote:So how should I read וְיָלַדְתְּ (as in Judges 13:5) versus וְיֹלַדְתְּ (as in Judges 13:5,7) versus וְיֹלֶדֶת (as in Isaiah 7:14)?

By ignoring the vowel points and reading the words in context.

You'll find that quite a few of us here don't really care about the Masoretic Vowel points, and there's quite the debate as to whether Hebrew verbs represent tense, aspect, mood, modality, etc., etc., and pretty much any combination thereof.

You may find the following thread a good read in this regard - viewtopic.php?f=6&t=587

You're referring to the maiden/damsel Rebekah, the young woman who has not known a man?

Heh. DIfferent topic for another time, especially as this has been a debate for a good 2000 years now

Jay:

nili95 wrote:First, regarding וְיֹלַדְתְּ ...

I would think that the options would be ילדת or יולדת, reflecting יָלַדְתְּ or יוֹלֶדֶת, being the 2nd person feminine singular past tense or the feminine singular present tense. If it is, indeed, "2nd person Qatal Qal feminine singular" would it not be rendered with a vav reflecting the presence of a kholam malei? Or are we dealing with a defective spelling of yoledet?

What I was originally taught in class is that there should be a waw in the verbs. However, upon reading the Tanakh through several times, I have found that in Biblical Hebrew, that the inclusion of such a waw is defective spelling, found normally only in very late Biblical Hebrew (Chronicles) and post-Biblical Hebrews.

(That is one indication to me that Biblical Hebrew pronunciation was in the process of being forgotten, if not already had been forgotten, by those who returned after the Babylonian exile. But that’s a discussion for another time.)

nili95 wrote:Second, I do not agree that almah is properly translated as 'virgin,' but I suspect that Isaiah 7:14 has been discussed more than once already.

That’s why in this discussion I referenced only the verbal usages.

However, now that you’ve brought it up, there are good linguistic reasons to say that עלמה refers to a virgin. It has a recognized root with the meaning of being unknown. This is the opposite of the euphemism for someone who is not a virgin. Secondly it is never used for anyone who is not a virgin (Proverbs 30:19 doesn’t refer to a human female). Third, the push to claim that it doesn’t refer to a virgin is post-Tanakh, by centuries. You’re free to disregard what I just wrote, I just put it up for the record.

But let me repeat, my reason for referring to Isaiah 7:14 was to point out the verbal usages, not this disputed term.

nili95 wrote:Thank you again for your response/

You’re welcome.

Karl W. Randolph.

S_Walch wrote: You may find the following thread a good read in this regard - viewtopic.php?f=6&t=587

Thank you, but it took only three pages to leave me in a state of despair. I'm beginning to suspect that this stuff is simply beyond me.

nili95 wrote:Thank you, but it took only three pages to leave me in a state of despair. I'm beginning to suspect that this stuff is simply beyond me.

Jay:

Don’t give up so quickly. For many of us, this conversation reflects the fruits of decades of study. Because Biblical Hebrew is so different from even modern Israeli Hebrew, even scholars sometimes have difficulty understanding what is before their faces. So just relax, let these ideas soak in, I am confident that you could possibly surpass us.

Karl W. Randolph.