Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Joel:

Thanks for your response, but it didn’t answer my questions.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Joel C. Salomon 
<joelcsalomon AT gmail.com>wrote:

> K Randolph wrote:
> > This is from the section from verses 7 – 11 dealing with how one should
> deal
> > with a purchased Hebrew slave girl.
> >
> >  אם־רעה בעיני אדניה אשׁר־לא יעדה והפדה לעם נכרי לא־ימשׁל למכרה בבגדו־בה׃
> >
>
> The first unclear verb (what the master “did not do” or “did to him”) is
> יעדה (designated her), not ידעה (sexual relations).


Here I read יעדה as calling her to an appointed meeting, with the
implications that it is sexual in nature.


>  The traditional
> explanation is a combination of the Qere/Qetiv:
>        אשר לא יעדה     that he did not designate her
>        אשר לו יעדה     that he designated her for himself
> Rashi says “שהיה לו ליעדה ולהכניסה לו לאשה” (he should have designated
> her and married her).
>
> The second verb in question (והפדה) is taken to be a form of the verb
> פדה, “redeemed”.
>

This is what puzzles me, in that “redeem” does not fit the context here.
This is a Hebrew female slave, therefore she is not to be “redeemed to a
foreign people” והפדה לעם נכרי . How does redemption fit in there at all?

Further, in the context of יעדה which has a fem sing pron suffix, I would
expect that the final heh on והפדה is the same. Which brings up a question,
is there any example of a fem sing pron suffix on a third pers Qatal
lamed-heh verb other than this disputed case?

>
> I’ll check how S. R. Hirsch explains the grammar tomorrow.
>
> —Joel Salomon
>

Karl W. Randolph.
�&�X�ج�k'r���#��}5�N��m4�����j�c�;��+,��ܢeή("��S��^n���+-�&�nX���zX�z��N��y���X��ț��b���E���o)b��"n&劊+��,��~�&�ǫ����h��6Ӏ�ׁk�}rݴ��uӽtӍ44�J��
����z�"�t�j`,��,�}��m4�O4��jW��%ҥ��z�]*Z�+Z��
��(�