Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Vadim,

>  >The verb XLL is an ayn-ayn root.
> Not necessarily. hll can be either a whole root, or ayn-ayn root. The latter
> designation applies if one letter is weak, and is dropped. ayn-ayn root
> would make
> mholal in pual.
> The binyan poal, which you mention, is someone's (I think, Gesenius') error.
> The form poal is actually gizra of the ayn-ayn roots, with few deviations.
>
> Why I'm insisting on this technical issue? Because the root of meholal is
> either ayn-ayn or another root with the same behavior, hol, which makes
> meholal into shock or tremble. Consider:
>
> Job26:13 his hand shock the wriggling serpent
>
> Ps29:9 voice of God makes deer tremble and strips forests bare
>
> Job26:5 refaim will tremble [in Sheol]
>
> Prov26:10: like a master who shocks (or, possibly, empties) all, is the one
> who hires a fool or a passer-by
>
> Is51:9: are you not the one who... made the crocodile (pharaoh) tremble
>
>
> This is my preferred translation of Is53:5:
>
> but he is shocked because of our crimes, depressed because of our iniquities

HH: Thanks, I'll stay with the traditional rendering.

> However, if you prefer to derive meholal from hll, consider:
>
> hll never means "pierced" (in the Christian sense "pierced with nails or
> spear," right?). Killed (with sword) -
> yes, but why "pierced?" Is there any clue which eluded me? Or is it yet
> another pure conjecture?

HH: Studies in cognate languages show that the 
verbal root has the idea of piercing. So in the 
biblical texts people are killed by being pierced 
through with a sword, or the heart is pierced 
with pain.

> Now let's turn to Meshech and Tubal in Ezek32. Why other tribes are hll, and
> only these two are mhll? The difference is surely not incidental.
> Unlike other enemies, Meshech and Tubal are predicted to lay dead in the
> future tense.
> Elam and Assyria are already in Sheol. Then it is stated that Egypt would be
> there. Then - about Meshech and Tubal, thus also in future.
> Ezek32:27: and they [Meshech and Tubal] won't lay with the mighty, [those
> who] dropped from the [ranks of] uncircumcised
> Ezek32:28: but you, among the uncirmcised you will be broken
> Overall, Meshech and Tubal are not dead yet.
> More significantly, every dead nation is said to be noflim beherev, while
> M&T: meholal herev. Thus, if anything, meholal is akin to nofel, laid,
> emptied - but different from killed.

HH: Thanks, I see no reason to doubt the traditional reading.

> Serpent in Job is not rahab, but nahash, which is not a monster. Isaiah was
> a native Hebrew-speaker and knew nahash as a minor snake, not a monster. The
> tempting nahash was not killed, as you know. Rahab is altogether another
> fellow.

HH: Leviathan in Isa 26:1 is no doubt a mythological monster.

Is. 27:1 ¶ In that day, the LORD will punish with 
his sword, his fierce, great and powerful sword, 
Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the 
coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the 
sea.

                                        Yours,
                                        Harold Holmyard