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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 2 S 4 (cui dandum erat mihi) appears to be similar; it may, however, be better, with Wellhausen, to omit the אֲשֶׁר.
- ↑ But in 1 S 23 after וְלָ֫נוּ and our part shall be the infinitive without לְ stands as the subject of the sentence.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
