Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/373

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

est, unless we simply read יִמְצָא with the LXX)[1]; 20:25, Ec 3 אֲשֶׁר לִֽהְיוֹת quod futurum est; 2 Ch 11, 12 (in a negative statement); in a question, Est 7 (will he even... ?). Cf. also 1 S 4.

 [k Of (b) Jos 2 וַיְהִי הַשַּׁ֫עַר לִסְגּוֹר and the gate was to be shut (had to be shut); Is 37, ψ 109.[2] Mostly with the omission of הָיָה, e.g. 2 K 4 מֶה לַֽעֲשׂוֹת לָךְ וג׳ what is to be done for thee? (הֲיֵשׁ לְדַבֶּר־לָךְ) wouldest thou be (lit. is it to be) spoken for to the king, &c.? 2 K 13 לְהַכּוֹת it was to smite equivalent to thou shouldest have smitten; Is 5, ψ 32, 68 (?), Jb 30 (habitandum est iis), 1 Ch 9, 10, 22, 2 Ch 8 (?), 11:22, 19:2, 36:19 (?), Ho 9, Hb 1. In a question 2 Ch 19; after לֹא 1 Ch 5, 15; after אֵין 1 Ch 23, 2 Ch 5 and frequently.

 [l Of the same kind also are the cases, in which the infinitive with לְ depends on the idea of an obligation or permission (or prohibition); especially in such forms of expression as 2 S 18 עָלַי לָ֫תֶת לְךָ וג׳ it was upon me, i.e. it would have been my duty to give thee, &c.[3]; cf. Mi 3 (2 Ch 13) it is not for you to (i.e. are ye not bound to)?[4] with a negative, 2 Ch 26 לֹא לְךָ וג׳ it pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but only to the priests; also אֵין לְ with an infinitive expresses it is not permitted (nefas est), may not, e.g. Est 4 כִּי אֵין לָבוֹא for none might enter; 8:8, 1 Ch 15;[5] אֵין לְ with an infinitive is used in a somewhat different sense, equivalent to it is not feasible, not possible, e.g. in ψ 40, Ec 3, 2 Ch 5.[6]—With either meaning לֹא can be used instead of אֵין, e.g. Am 6 לֹא לְהַזְכִּיר nefas est, to make mention of the name of the Lord: but Ju 1 for it was not possible to drive out, &c., perhaps, however, the text originally stood as in Jos 17 לֹא יָֽכְלוּ לְה׳; 1 Ch 15.


  1. P. Haupt (SBOT., Proverbs, p. 52, lines 10 ff.; Critical Notes on Esther, p. 170, on 7:8) considers it possible that here and in Pr 2, 6, 7, 16, 30, as well as in 14:35, 17:21 before a noun, the ל is a survival of the emphatic ל with an imperf., which is especially common in Arabic. In that case לִמְצֹא must be read לִמְצָא, i.e. ל##יִמַצָא. But all the above instances can be taken as infinitives with ל without difficulty.
  2. Somewhat different are the cases where הָיָה לְ with the infinitive (which is then used exactly as a substantive) implies to become something, i.e. to meet with a particular fate, as Nu 24 (cf. Is 5, 6) לְבָעֵר for wasting, for which elsewhere frequently לְשַׁמָּה and the like; probably also לְבַלּוֹת ψ 49 is to be explained in this way, the הָיָה being omitted.
  3. 2 S 4 (cui dandum erat mihi) appears to be similar; it may, however, be better, with Wellhausen, to omit the אֲשֶׁר.
  4. But in 1 S 23 after וְלָ֫נוּ and our part shall be the infinitive without לְ stands as the subject of the sentence.
  5. Quite different of course are such cases as Is 37 וְכֹחַ אַ֫יִן לְלֵדָה and there is not strength to bring forth; cf. Nu 20, Ru 4.
  6. In 2 S 14 אִשׁ (= יֵשׁ it is, there is) is used in a similar sense after אִם, the negative particle of asseveration, of a truth it is not possible to turn to the right hand or to the left.