B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Deuteronomy 33:27 - 28 דברים
33:27מְעֹנָה֙ אֱלֹ֣הֵי קֶ֔דֶם וּמִתַּ֖חַת זְרֹעֹ֣ת עוֹלָ֑ם וַיְגָ֧רֶשׁ מִפָּנֶ֛יךָ אוֹיֵ֖ב וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַשְׁמֵֽד׃ 33:28וַיִּשְׁכֹּן֩ יִשְׂרָאֵ֨ל בֶּ֤טַח בָּדָד֙ עֵ֣ין יַעֲקֹ֔ב
אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ דָּגָ֣ן וְתִיר֑וֹשׁ אַף־שָׁמָ֖יו יַֽעַרְפוּ טָֽל׃

JPS 1917
27The eternal God is a dwelling-place,
And underneath are the everlasting arms;
And He thrust out the enemy from before thee,
And said: ‘Destroy.’
28And Israel dwelleth in safety,
The fountain of Jacob alone,
In a land of corn and wine;
Yea, his heavens drop down dew.

Most translations of Deuteronomy 33:27 say "destroy", but shouldn't it be "be destroyed"?
Also, most translations say "and Israel dwelled in safety", but it is about the future, so it could be "and Israel will dwell in safety"?

that's not the niphal stem (if it were the niphal stem you would see the dagesh in the first root consonant (representing the assimulated nun) - as in הִשָּׁמֵד. Notice very carefully the prefix here in the niphal imperative is הִ

What you see in 33:27 is the hiphil stem, imperative: "Destroy!"

Glenn

Glenn,
I am sorry that I didn't explain my opinion better. I meant that I think the traditional reading of the word as "destroy" is wrong and maybe it makes more sense as "be destroyed." I usually look at the consonants and what the quote says to see if it makes sense some other way.

It's hiphil. It isn't passive. That's the point that Glenn is making.

Glenn and Jason,

I don't see who God would be commanding to "destroy", but it sounds like He was commanding the enemy to "be destroyed."

I guess He could be talking to Israel when He says destroy. Never mind. (Some character on TV used to say that. (Emily Litella on Saturday Night LIve played by Gilda Radner).

Kenneth Greifer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:07 am Deuteronomy 33:27 - 28 דברים
33:27מְעֹנָה֙ אֱלֹ֣הֵי קֶ֔דֶם וּמִתַּ֖חַת זְרֹעֹ֣ת עוֹלָ֑ם וַיְגָ֧רֶשׁ מִפָּנֶ֛יךָ אוֹיֵ֖ב וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַשְׁמֵֽד׃ 33:28וַיִּשְׁכֹּן֩ יִשְׂרָאֵ֨ל בֶּ֤טַח בָּדָד֙ עֵ֣ין יַעֲקֹ֔ב
אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ דָּגָ֣ן וְתִיר֑וֹשׁ אַף־שָׁמָ֖יו יַֽעַרְפוּ טָֽל׃

Most translations of Deuteronomy 33:27 say "destroy", but shouldn't it be "be destroyed"?

Using the unpointed text, the verb is Hophal binyan with a middle voice “cause to be destroyed” where the “cause” is active and “be destroyed” passive, hence together making a middle voice.

This is one of the many places where the Masoretes incorrectly pointed a Hophal as a Hiphil.

Kenneth Greifer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:07 am Also, most translations say "and Israel dwelled in safety", but it is about the future, so it could be "and Israel will dwell in safety"?

Yes, this is a future use of the Wayyiqtol.

Karl W. Randolph.

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:14 pm Using the unpointed text, the verb is Hophal binyan with a middle voice “cause to be destroyed” where the “cause” is active and “be destroyed” passive, hence together making a middle voice.

If it were hophal, it wouldn't mean "cause to be destroyed." The hiphil השמיד doesn't mean "cause to destroy." It just means "destroy." Therefore, the hophal would simply be the passive of that sense. It would be "be destroyed," not "cause to be destroyed." You're reading "cause" into the hiphil where it isn't there naturally.

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:14 pm This is one of the many places where the Masoretes incorrectly pointed a Hophal as a Hiphil.

I don't trust your instincts with Hebrew to be better than those of the Masoretes. You're just speculating.

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:11 am

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:14 pm Using the unpointed text, the verb is Hophal binyan with a middle voice “cause to be destroyed” where the “cause” is active and “be destroyed” passive, hence together making a middle voice.

If it were hophal, it wouldn't mean "cause to be destroyed." The hiphil השמיד doesn't mean "cause to destroy." It just means "destroy." Therefore, the hophal would simply be the passive of that sense. It would be "be destroyed," not "cause to be destroyed." You're reading "cause" into the hiphil where it isn't there naturally.

Here you confuse translation with meaning in Biblical Hebrew itself. Literal translation often comes out awkward.

Here is also a place where we disagree concerning Biblical Hebrew grammar—the Hiphil and Hophal binyanim are grammatical forms that impart the causative force to verbs. In other words, the binyanim are a type of conjugation.

Without doing a detailed study, I noticed that the Hiphil of שמד has the causative meaning in Deuteronomy 31:3–4 where God caused the destruction by means of the weapons in Israel’s hands.

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:11 am

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:14 pm This is one of the many places where the Masoretes incorrectly pointed a Hophal as a Hiphil.

I don't trust your instincts with Hebrew to be better than those of the Masoretes. You're just speculating.

You don’t have to trust me, that’s your business.

I don’t trust the Masoretes’ instincts concerning Biblical Hebrew language when they disregard the text as written. In other words, I trust the writers of Tanakh more than I trust the Masoretes.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,

How do you distinguish between the hiphil imperative (הַקְטֵל haqṭēl) and the hophal perfect (הָקְטַל hoqṭal)? What makes you certain that it's hophal and not hiphil?

This isn't about trusting the writers of the consonantal text over against the Masoretes. You haven't proved that the Masoretes were incorrect. You're just ever so eager to reject all points and declare yourself more knowledgeable and more reasonable in your conclusions. I think the Masoretic points should be accepted as-is, and if we disagree with them on occasion (as happens), great. But don't just reject them outright and act as if they were always wrong (which they certainly are not). You are too eager to call them fools.

Jason