Exodus 9:3 -- הִנֵּ֨ה יַד־יְהוָ֜ה הוֹיָ֗ה

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sefaria (JPS) offers ...

הִנֵּ֨ה יַד־יְהוָ֜ה הוֹיָ֗ה בְּמִקְנְךָ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה בַּסּוּסִ֤ים בַּֽחֲמֹרִים֙ בַּגְּמַלִּ֔ים בַּבָּקָ֖ר וּבַצֹּ֑אן דֶּ֖בֶר כָּבֵ֥ד מְאֹֽד׃

then the hand of the LORD will strike your livestock in the fields—the horses, the asses, the camels, the cattle, and the sheep—with a very severe pestilence.​

While The Complete Jewish Bible With Rashi Commentary offers

behold, the hand of the Lord will be upon your livestock that is in the field, upon the horses, upon the donkeys, upon the camels, upon the cattle, and upon the sheep, a very severe pestilence.​

with Rashi adding

behold, the hand of the Lord will be: Heb. הוֹיָה. This is the present tense, for so it is said in the feminine gender: in the past הָיְתָה, in the future ךְתִּהְיֶה, and in the present הוֹיָה, like עוֹשָֹה (does), רוֹצָה (wants), רוֹעָה (pastures).
​

And yet neither translation is in the present tense. So, too, in the case of Fox and Kaplan. At least with Friedman we get

here, YHWH's hand is on your livestock that are in the field​

so, why the presence of the copula and why the form הוֹיָה instead of הוֹוה?

Any thoughts?

 

[Rival]

Sefaria (JPS) offers ...

הִנֵּ֨ה יַד־יְהוָ֜ה הוֹיָ֗ה בְּמִקְנְךָ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה בַּסּוּסִ֤ים בַּֽחֲמֹרִים֙ בַּגְּמַלִּ֔ים בַּבָּקָ֖ר וּבַצֹּ֑אן דֶּ֖בֶר כָּבֵ֥ד מְאֹֽד׃

then the hand of the LORD will strike your livestock in the fields—the horses, the asses, the camels, the cattle, and the sheep—with a very severe pestilence.​

While The Complete Jewish Bible With Rashi Commentary offers

behold, the hand of the Lord will be upon your livestock that is in the field, upon the horses, upon the donkeys, upon the camels, upon the cattle, and upon the sheep, a very severe pestilence.​

with Rashi adding

behold, the hand of the Lord will be: Heb. הוֹיָה. This is the present tense, for so it is said in the feminine gender: in the past הָיְתָה, in the future ךְתִּהְיֶה, and in the present הוֹיָה, like עוֹשָֹה (does), רוֹצָה (wants), רוֹעָה (pastures).
​

And yet neither translation is in the present tense. So, too, in the case of Fox and Kaplan. At least with Friedman we get

here, YHWH's hand is on your livestock that are in the field​

so, why the presence of the copula and why the form הוֹיָה instead of הוֹוה?

Any thoughts?

Unfortunately while I can't help as I speak nor write no Hebrew, I would like to add that my Koren-Sacks translation has it in the present tense,

''...behold, the hand of the LORD is upon thy cattle which is in the field...'

 

[rosends]

You have two separate questions here -- one has to do with the use of those letters to signal the present form of the verb, Some of the commentators do mention that and tie it to the use of the 4 letters of the 4 letter name of God. The other is about the use of the Hebrew present but the English future tense. I think that is more from a shortcut in logic that the translators are using. The text says
כִּ֛י אִם־מָאֵ֥ן אַתָּ֖ה לְשַׁלֵּ֑חַ וְעוֹדְךָ֖ מַחֲזִ֥יק בָּֽם׃

For if you refuse to let them go...

[which is about a future possibility]

הִנֵּ֨ה יַד־יְהוָ֜ה הוֹיָ֗ה בְּמִקְנְךָ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה בַּסּוּסִ֤ים בַּֽחֲמֹרִים֙ בַּגְּמַלִּ֔ים בַּבָּקָ֖ר וּבַצֹּ֑אן דֶּ֖בֶר כָּבֵ֥ד מְאֹֽד׃

Behold, [you will be shocked to realize that] the Hand of God IS on your flock.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You have two separate questions here -- one has to do with the use of those letters to signal the present form of the verb, Some of the commentators do mention that and tie it to the use of the 4 letters of the 4 letter name of God.

Alter writes:

The verb "to be" in Hebrew is not suppose to have a participial, or present, tense. At this ominous and supernatural juncture, however, that verbal stem h-y-h yields an anomalous hoyah, rendered in this translation as "about to be." This strange usage involves a kind of fearsome pun on the divine name YHWH that was mysteriously highlighted in the Burning Bush episode. [The Hebrew Bible, Vol. 1, Exodus 9:3, pg. 247]​

But this begs the question: Has this occurred elsewhere and, if so, where?

I think that is more from a shortcut in logic that the translators are using. The text says
כִּ֛י אִם־מָאֵ֥ן אַתָּ֖ה לְשַׁלֵּ֑חַ וְעוֹדְךָ֖ מַחֲזִ֥יק בָּֽם׃

For if you refuse to let them go...

[which is about a future possibility]

הִנֵּ֨ה יַד־יְהוָ֜ה הוֹיָ֗ה בְּמִקְנְךָ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה בַּסּוּסִ֤ים בַּֽחֲמֹרִים֙ בַּגְּמַלִּ֔ים בַּבָּקָ֖ר וּבַצֹּ֑אן דֶּ֖בֶר כָּבֵ֥ד מְאֹֽד׃

Behold, [you will be shocked to realize that] the Hand of God IS on your flock.

Very nicely done. Thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just to add, the NET Bible notes ...

The form used here is הוֹיָה (hoyah), the Qal active participle, feminine singular, from the verb “to be.” This is the only place in the OT that this form occurs. Ogden shows that this form is appropriate with the particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) to stress impending divine action, and that it conforms to the pattern in these narratives where five times the participle is used in the threat to Pharaoh (7:17; 8:2; 9:3, 14; 10:4). See G. S. Ogden, “Notes on the Use of הויה in Exodus IX. 3,” VT 17 (1967): 483-84.​

... which, for those with JSTOR access, can be found here.

It would be really interesting to discover whether we find this in Qumran manuscripts such as the Cave 4 Samaritan recension.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for my last comment above, I've been informed that "according to Ulrich, Biblical Manuscripts from Qumran, that particular verse is not attested in any of the Qumran manuscripts of Exodus."

(Bummer!)

I think it worthwhile to note that Tyndale House SP offers: הנה יד יהוה היה במקניך.

 

[Harel13]

New As for my last comment above, I've been informed that "according to Ulrich, Biblical Manuscripts from Qumran, that particular verse is not attested in any of the Qumran manuscripts of Exodus."

Perhaps one day another will be found.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps one day another will be found.

One can hope, but I won't be holding my breath.

I decided to pull out my Gesenius and Jouon-Muraoka Biblical Hebrew grammar texts in the hopes of finding something, but apparently no one thought the copula in 9:3 worthy of note. So I guess that I'm left with Rashi saying one thing and the Tarmon-Uval Verb Table telling me another.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For the record, the verb table of the Academy lists both shoreshim.

 

[rosends]

For the record, the verb table of the Academy lists both shoreshim.

I know nothing about that site's method. Could they be extrapolating backwards and taking the singular instance of the word in Sing, masc, pres and buildiing around it to justify the use (and labeling all of them archaic to explain why it doesn't exist anymore)?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I know nothing about that site's method. Could they be extrapolating backwards and taking the singular instance of the word in Sing, masc, pres and buildiing around it to justify the use (and labeling all of them archaic to explain why it doesn't exist anymore)?

I don't know, nor do I know if that would be markedly different from Rashi's approach. I guess when confronted with a single example there's nowhere else to go than midrash. I do think it interesting that we find היה in the Samaritan Pentateuch. I also think it interesting that something so unique has not inspired reams of commentary, especially given the similarity between the verb form and the tetragrammaton.

I wish I was brighter when it comes to language.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@rosends, I just noticed that The JPS Torah Commentary Exodus (N. Sarna) on 10:10 notes:

10. The Lord be Hebrew yehi ... YHVH -- another play on the divine name and the verb "to be," as in 3:14 and 9:3.​

Also, in post 5 above I note that NET Bible references G. S. Ogden, “Notes on the Use of הויה in Exodus IX. 3,” VT 17 (1967). He offers a more general treatment of the copula in "Time, and the Verb היה in O.T. Prose," VT 21 (1971) where he reiterates:

"In order to bring Ex. ix 3 into line with this pattern [i.e., הנה + subject + participle + object] ... the form הויה is produced and used in preference to the Imperfect, the form which would have been more normal."​

In other words, Ogden seems to believe (contra Rashi) that what we have here is not so much the utilization of an obscure form but, rather, the creation (or, in his words, the production) of an unique form.

​

 

[rosends]

@rosends, I just noticed that The JPS Torah Commentary Exodus (N. Sarna) on 10:10 notes:

10. The Lord be Hebrew yehi ... YHVH -- another play on the divine name and the verb "to be," as in 3:14 and 9:3.​

Also, in post 5 above I note that NET Bible references G. S. Ogden, “Notes on the Use of הויה in Exodus IX. 3,” VT 17 (1967). He offers a more general treatment of the copula in "Time, and the Verb היה in O.T. Prose," VT 21 (1971) where he reiterates:

"In order to bring Ex. ix 3 into line with this pattern [i.e., הנה + subject + participle + object] ... the form הויה is produced and used in preference to the Imperfect, the form which would have been more normal."​

In other words, Ogden seems to believe (contra Rashi) that what we have here is not so much the utilization of an obscure form but, rather, the creation (or, in his words, the production) of an unique form.

​

Right, so if this is a play on words, it shouldn't be used as an example of a consistent family of forms as that Academy website does. They ruin the joke by reducing it to a simple archaic form.

 

[Jake1001]

Sefaria (JPS) offers ...

הִנֵּ֨ה יַד־יְהוָ֜ה הוֹיָ֗ה בְּמִקְנְךָ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה בַּסּוּסִ֤ים בַּֽחֲמֹרִים֙ בַּגְּמַלִּ֔ים בַּבָּקָ֖ר וּבַצֹּ֑אן דֶּ֖בֶר כָּבֵ֥ד מְאֹֽד׃

then the hand of the LORD will strike your livestock in the fields—the horses, the asses, the camels, the cattle, and the sheep—with a very severe pestilence.​

While The Complete Jewish Bible With Rashi Commentary offers

behold, the hand of the Lord will be upon your livestock that is in the field, upon the horses, upon the donkeys, upon the camels, upon the cattle, and upon the sheep, a very severe pestilence.​

with Rashi adding

behold, the hand of the Lord will be: Heb. הוֹיָה. This is the present tense, for so it is said in the feminine gender: in the past הָיְתָה, in the future ךְתִּהְיֶה, and in the present הוֹיָה, like עוֹשָֹה (does), רוֹצָה (wants), רוֹעָה (pastures).
​

And yet neither translation is in the present tense. So, too, in the case of Fox and Kaplan. At least with Friedman we get

here, YHWH's hand is on your livestock that are in the field​

so, why the presence of the copula and why the form הוֹיָה instead of הוֹוה?

Any thoughts?

Good question, Jay, I would say the copula is the correct syntax used for this grammatical structure.

Btw, for those who don’t know the definition of copula, here it is:
a connecting word, in particular a form of the verb be connecting a subject and complement

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Right, so if this is a play on words, it shouldn't be used as an example of a consistent family of forms as that Academy website does. They ruin the joke by reducing it to a simple archaic form.

I think that there's a difference between a pun and a joke.

Furthermore, the Academy seems to offer הוֹיָה as an atypical option. What else could they do? The form is found in the Torah and their job is to categorize rather than interpret. After all, if it was good enough for the Samaritans, for the Masoretes (no puncta extraordinaria marking), for Rashi, and (apparently) for Gesenius, then ...

Come to think of it, if the present tense copula is all but nonexistent in Biblical Hebrew, how did Asher Tarmon and Ezri Uval (among others) determine that הוֹוֶה and הוֹוָה were proper present tense for לִהְיוֹת (contra Rashi)?
--------------
For what it's worth, I found the following while looking through Brown-Driver-Briggs I found ...

• 1933 [הָוָה] vb. become; a rare synonym of הָיָה
• 1961 [הָיָה] vb. fall out, come to pass, become, bd; Pt. f. הוֹיָה Ex 9.3

... where Pt. f. stands for participle feminine.

 

[Jake1001]

I don't know, nor do I know if that would be markedly different from Rashi's approach. I guess when confronted with a single example there's nowhere else to go than midrash. I do think it interesting that we find היה in the Samaritan Pentateuch. I also think it interesting that something so unique has not inspired reams of commentary, especially given the similarity between the verb form and the tetragrammaton.

I wish I was brighter when it comes to language.

Jay you miss the big picture because you are lost in the weeds. Do you need me to bring relevance to this thread ?