# Aramaic: יַהֲתִיב֗וּן וִ֠יהָ֠ךְ



## munz123

Shalom everyone

וְ֠אַ֠ף מָאנֵ֣י בֵית־אֱלָהָא֮ דִּ֣י דַהֲבָ֣ה וְכַסְפָּא֒ דִּ֣י נְבֽוּכַדְנֶצַּ֗ר הַנְפֵּ֛ק מִן־הֵיכְלָ֥א דִי־בִירוּשְׁלֶ֖ם וְהֵיבֵ֣ל לְבָבֶ֑ל יַהֲתִיב֗וּן וִ֠יהָ֠ךְ לְהֵיכְלָ֤א דִי־בִירֽוּשְׁלֶם֙ לְאַתְרֵ֔הּ וְתַחֵ֖ת בְּבֵ֥ית אֱלָהָֽא׃
(Ezra 6:5)

Also, the golden and silver vessels of the temple of the God that Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple of Jerusalem and brought to Babylon let them be returned and let them go to the temple that is in Jerusalem, to their place. You will deposit (them) in the temple of God.

Is the verb יַהֲתִיב֗וּן "let them be returned" in the jussive or the non-jussive present tense? I'm asking because it looks like it's NOT jussive.


----------



## Ali Smith

You are right. Had it been jussive it would not have had a נון at the end. Therefore, it should be translated

וְ֠אַ֠ף מָאנֵ֣י בֵית־אֱלָהָא֮ דִּ֣י דַהֲבָ֣ה וְכַסְפָּא֒ דִּ֣י נְבֽוּכַדְנֶצַּ֗ר הַנְפֵּ֛ק מִן־הֵיכְלָ֥א דִי־בִירוּשְׁלֶ֖ם וְהֵיבֵ֣ל לְבָבֶ֑ל יַהֲתִיב֗וּן וִ֠יהָ֠ךְ לְהֵיכְלָ֤א דִי־בִירֽוּשְׁלֶם֙ לְאַתְרֵ֔הּ וְתַחֵ֖ת בְּבֵ֥ית אֱלָהָֽא׃
(Ezra 6:5)

Also, the golden and silver vessels of the temple of the God that Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple of Jerusalem and brought to Babylon will be returned and it will go to the temple that is in Jerusalem, to their place. You will deposit (them) in the temple of God.

It is wrong to translate it "let them be returned", for that would require the jussive.


----------



## Glasguensis

With all due respect a translation is not simply a robotic transcription « warts and all ». This is very clearly a list of instructions, and « let them be returned » is a perfectly good way in English of formulating an instruction.


----------



## Ali Smith

Sure, but then why isn’t the verb in the jussive?


----------



## Abaye

Please consider using existing resources available on the net.
Ezra 6:5 Hebrew Text Analysis


----------



## Ali Smith

I checked it out. It doesn't mention why יַהֲתִיב֗וּן isn't in the jussive. Its jussive form would, of course, have been יַהֲתִיבוּ.


----------



## Glasguensis

You are taking the translation and back-translating into the original language, and you are then surprised that it doesn’t match. This happens all the time. There are often multiple possibilities for expressing a particular meaning


----------



## Abaye

Ali Smith said:


> I checked it out. It doesn't mention why יַהֲתִיב֗וּן isn't in the jussive. Its jussive form would, of course, have been יַהֲתִיבוּ.


You concentrate on one specific word while the Biblehub analysis site provides coherent translation of the whole verse. Notice how the first די serves (according to this analysis) as "let". Hebrew has similar structure with the ש preposition, for example "*ש*ילכו כבר" means "let them go already".


----------



## Ali Smith

וְ֠אַ֠ף מָאנֵ֣י בֵית־אֱלָהָא֮ דִּ֣י דַהֲבָ֣ה וְכַסְפָּא֒ דִּ֣י נְבֽוּכַדְנֶצַּ֗ר הַנְפֵּ֛ק מִן־הֵיכְלָ֥א דִי־בִירוּשְׁלֶ֖ם וְהֵיבֵ֣ל לְבָבֶ֑ל יַהֲתִיב֗וּן וִ֠יהָ֠ךְ לְהֵיכְלָ֤א דִי־בִירֽוּשְׁלֶם֙ לְאַתְרֵ֔הּ וְתַחֵ֖ת בְּבֵ֥ית אֱלָהָֽא׃
(Ezra 6:5)

No, the די you’re talking about is clearly relative.


----------



## Abaye

First means first, why did you highlight the third? And did you even read the link I referred to?


----------



## Ali Smith

Sorry about that! Yes, I did read it.

So, the first די indicates purpose?

וְ֠אַ֠ף מָאנֵ֣י בֵית־אֱלָהָא֮ דִּ֣י דַהֲבָ֣ה וְכַסְפָּא֒ דִּ֣י נְבֽוּכַדְנֶצַּ֗ר הַנְפֵּ֛ק מִן־הֵיכְלָ֥א דִי־בִירוּשְׁלֶ֖ם וְהֵיבֵ֣ל לְבָבֶ֑ל יַהֲתִיב֗וּן וִ֠יהָ֠ךְ לְהֵיכְלָ֤א דִי־בִירֽוּשְׁלֶם֙ לְאַתְרֵ֔הּ וְתַחֵ֖ת בְּבֵ֥ית אֱלָהָֽא׃
(Ezra 6:5)

I think it's genitive, because the meaning is clearly "And also the gold and silver vessels of God's house".


----------



## zaw

Yes, it is pretty clear that the first די is for ownership, i.e. genitive.


----------



## Ali Smith

zaw said:


> Yes, it is pretty clear that the first די is for ownership, i.e. genitive.


It is indeed a genitive די, but it is not the genitive of possession; it is the genitive of material.


----------



## zaw

Why can't it be the genitive of possession?


----------

