# אל-יתן למוט רגלך



## airelibre

In psalm 121:
אל־יתן למוט רגלך אל־ינום שמרך
why is it אל-יתן and not לא יתן? (the same with ינום)

Thanks


----------



## arielipi

because. 10 chars.


----------



## origumi

This is more a request than simple future. Therefore אַל is preferred instead of לא.

Compare to the Vulgata translation: _non *det *in commotionem pedem tuum nec *dormitet *qui custodit te_ - coniunctivus (subjunctive) form for the verbs after אל, which expresses (I believe) the _may he not_.

Could be also בַּל, as in אָמַר בְּלִבּוֹ *בַּל* אֶמּוֹט (also in Psalms). I think that בל is more popular in northern Canaanite/Hebrew, especially Phoenician.

Note that for imperative, אל instead of לא is the usual word before the negated verb, Biblical and Moderm Hebrew.


----------



## airelibre

Then why in the very next line is לא preferred for what is seemingly a very similar sense?
הִנֵּ֣ה לֹֽא־יָ֭נוּם וְלֹ֣א יִישָׁ֑ן שׁ֝וֹמֵ֗ר יִשְׂרָאֵֽל


----------



## origumi

airelibre said:


> Then why in the very next line is לא preferred for what is seemingly a very similar sense?
> הִנֵּ֣ה לֹֽא־יָ֭נוּם וְלֹ֣א יִישָׁ֑ן שׁ֝וֹמֵ֗ר יִשְׂרָאֵֽל


This is more simple future than a request or prayer. Going to the Vulgata again, we find _ ecce non *dormitabit* neque *dormiet* qui custodiet Israhel_ - future, not subjunctive. So לא is more appropriate.


----------



## airelibre

Ok, thanks.


----------



## arielipi

youre taking it wrong because whatever vulgata is - hebrew is the source.
its like saying Shakespeare said X after deceiving it from language Y which is not english.


----------



## origumi

arielipi said:


> youre taking it wrong because whatever vulgata is - hebrew is the source.
> its like saying Shakespeare said X after deceiving it from language Y which is not english.


The Vulgata (English: Vulgate) is a 4th century translation of the Bible to Latin. I make use of the Latin translation because Latin, unlike Hebrew, has different forms for future (something that will happen) and subjunctive (something that would/could/should happen). Also, the early Christian understanding of the Biblical text (at least the grammar, vs. religious interpretation) is likely to have been rather close to the original Jewish interpretation of the time (or of the preceding centuries ). Therefore the Latin version is helpful for demonstrating concepts which are known and yet not apparent in the Hebrew grammatical structure.

Another example of getting assistance of translated material is the Septuaginta תרגום השבעים (English: Septuagint, 3rd-1st BC Greek translation of the whole Bible, done by Jews). In some recent threads it was employed to determine the original Hebrew pronunciation. This is possible because proper names were transcribed and not translated (that is, written in Greek letters), and the Greek pronunciation of the time is very much known.

Yet another example is Onkelos (Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch חמישה חומשי תורה). The authoring place and date are uncertain, maybe 1st-2nd centuries AD with maybe some earlier parts and some later editing. In many cases Onkelos contains explanation and not only translation, following the Jewish notion of its time.

So, although your critique about using a secondary and foreign source makes sense, there are circumstances in which it's fruitful. Would Champollion decipher the Egyptian language not having its Greek and Demotic translations on the Rosetta Stone?


----------



## arielipi

Onkelus is an exceptiojn because it is another semitic language.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

Greetings to all,

Origami is right in what he says, but I thought might add a little something. Although they appear to be imperfects, the verbs יִתֵּן and יָנוּם in verse 3 are to be understood as jussives which explains why they are negated with אַל. As such, verse 3 may be translated as “May he not allow your foot to wobble, may he who keeps you not slumber” (אַל־יִתֵּן לָמוּט רַגְלֶךָ אַל־יָנוּם שֹׁמְרֶךָ) [emending לַמּוֹט to לָמוּט per BHS]). In verse 4 the verbs יָנוּם and יִישָׁן are to be understood as imperfects which explains why they are negated with לֹא. Thus verse 4 may be translated as “Behold, he who keeps Israel will not slumber nor sleep!” (הִנֵּה לֹא־יָנוּם וְלֹא יִישָׁן שׁוֹמֵר יִשְׂרָאֵל). Essentially then verse 3 is a request for a certain situation, while verse 4 a statement of assurance that the one who keeps Israel, i.e. God, will surely fulfill that request. Origami’s reference to the Vulgate shows that Jerome understood the verbs in verse 3 to be jussives and verse 4 to be imperfects. One could also add the Septuagint which translates with subjunctive aorist verbs in verse 3 and indicative future verbs in verse 4.

Jussives in many instances appear with the same form as the imperfect, as in verse 3, so that it is only by the context that one can distinguish them. Other times, however, jussives appear as an apocopated (shortened) form of the imperfect. For example, the qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular of the root עשׂה is יַעֲשֶׂה. However, at 1 Samuel 2:6 one finds וְעַתָּה יַעַשׂ־יהוה עִמָּכֶם חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת (“And now, may YHWH show continual kindness to you”), where יַעַשׂ is the jussive form. I hope the foregoing was helpful.

InfatigableLearner


----------



## airelibre

Thank you for helping to clarify.



InfatigableLearner said:


> (אַל־יִתֵּן לָמוּט רַגְלֶךָ אַל־יָנוּם שֹׁמְרֶךָ) [emending לַמּוֹט to לָמוּט per BHS]).



What is BHS?


----------



## Egmont

airelibre said:


> ... What is BHS?


Almost certainly the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

airelibre said:


> What is BHS?



As Egmont noted, it is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. This is the edition of the Hebrew Bible currently used within academia and is gradually being replaced by the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). Since both BHS and BHQ reproduce the Leningrad Codex as their main text, it is only the information in the critical apparatus that differs. I. however. am more interested in the Oxford Hebrew Bible (OHB) which aims to be a true critical edition of the Hebrew Bible ( http://ohb.berkeley.edu/ ). The central difference between the two is that BHS/BHQ retains the Masoretic Text from the Leningrad Codex and notes variants to that text in the apparatus, while OHB makes emendations to the text itself and provides a critical apparatus explaining the reasons for those changes as well as other variants. It may be that I will ultimately end up using BHQ since OHB has yet to produce any volumes and does not appear to be moving forward (Ronald S. Hendel, who is part of the OHB team, has already produced a critical text for Genesis 1-11 which is not technically a volume for OHB (_The Text of Genesis 1-11. Textual Studies and Critical Edition_ (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1998)). While for many the Masoretic Text enjoys the authoritative status of being a perfect text preserved all the way down from the time of Moses to today (e.g. אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה שֶׁכֹּל הַתּוֹתָה הַמְּצוּיָה עַתָּה בְיָדֵינוּ הִיא הַנְּתוּנָה לְמֹשֶׁה), the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shown that such a view rests on theological conviction, not on textual evidence. Thus I find in approaching the text of the Hebrew Bible that it is necessary to consult a critical edition.


----------

