Binyanim Under Pressure: Exodus 8:26

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֗ה לֹ֤א נָכוֹן֙ לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת כֵּ֔ן כִּ֚י תּוֹעֲבַ֣ת מִצְרַ֔יִם נִזְבַּ֖ח לַיהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵ֑ינוּ הֵ֣ן נִזְבַּ֞ח אֶת־תּוֹעֲבַ֥ת מִצְרַ֛יִם לְעֵינֵיהֶ֖ם וְלֹ֥א יִסְקְלֻֽנוּ׃
(Exodus 8:26)

And Moshe said not right to do thus for abomination of Mitsrayim we sacrifice to YHWH our God behold we sacrifice abomination of Mitsrayim before their eyes and will they not stone us

What This Verse Lets Us See About Binyanim

In one breath, this line moves from calm speech to ritual identity to public danger. The בִּנְיָנִים sharpen each step: a plain narrative move (וַיֹּאמֶר), an evaluative predicate built from a verb root (נָכוֹן), a core act of worship (נִזְבַּח), and an anticipated crowd reaction (יִסְקְלֻנוּ). Think of each stem as a different “gear” that controls torque and speed in the sentence.

Quick Map of the Verbal Forms

Verb-by-Verb: How Each Stem Works

1) וַיֹּאמֶר — Qal Wayyiqtol (אמר)

• Root & Pattern: אמר in Qal; narrative wayyiqtol chains events.
• Morphology: Prefixed וַ + imperfect with reduced vowel and doubling of the first stem consonant (orthographically visible on the yod with dagesh).
• Function: Neutral, active “he said.” The Qal keeps the action unmarked—speech is the frame, not the point.
• Discourse Effect: The wayyiqtol is a conveyor belt: it moves the scene seamlessly into Moshe’s reasoning.

2) נָכוֹן — Niphal Participle (כון)

• Root & Binyan: כון in Niphal often carries the sense “be established / be firm.” As a participle here, it functions predicatively: “it is not proper/right.”
• Morphology: Hollow root adaptation yields נָכוֹן (ms). As a participle, it behaves like an adjective, but its verbal DNA still matters.
• Semantic Force: The Niphal “lets the verb recline”: instead of actively doing, the situation presents itself as established or fitting—and here, with לֹא, not fitting.
• Syntactic Role: Predicate of the clause; the following לַעֲשׂוֹת is its complement (“to do thus”).
• Stylistic Note: Using a Niphal participle to label propriety gives the evaluation an objective feel, as if the moral weight is built into reality.

3) לַעֲשׂוֹת — Qal Infinitive Construct (עשה)

• Root & Form: עשה in Qal, infinitive construct with prefixed ל.
• Morphology: לַ + עֲשׂוֹת (shewa under the first radical, ḥolem on the final syllable).
• Function: Names the action under judgment: “to do thus.” The infinitive presents the act as a concept placed on trial by נָכוֹן.
• Pedagogical Analogy: The infinitive is the “noun-costume” of the verb—it turns doing into a thing for evaluation.

4) נִזְבַּח — Qal Imperfect 1cp (זבח)

• Root & Binyan: זבח in Qal = “sacrifice/slaughter (as an offering).”
• Morphology: 1cp imperfect with prefix נִ, shewa under ז, and dagesh in בּ (נִזְבַּח). Final ח favors a-a timbre in the stem vowel.
• Syntax: First-person plural subject “we”; its direct object is the culturally loaded תּוֹעֲבַת מִצְרַיִם.
• Semantic Nuance: In context, the imperfect can carry a near-future or generic/habitual sense: “we sacrifice / we will sacrifice.” The repetition after הֵן heightens immediacy—“look, we sacrifice… in front of them.”
• Literary Pulse: Qal here is the “straight walk” of worship—no causative bells, no intensive muscles—just the core covenant act.
• Cross‑Binyan Glimpse (same root elsewhere): In Niphal, זבח can mean “be sacrificed”; in Hiphil, one could expect a causative nuance “cause to sacrifice / offer up.” The verse’s choice of Qal keeps agency squarely with Israel: we perform the sacred act.

5) יִסְקְלֻנוּ — Qal Imperfect 3mp + 1cp suffix (סקל)

• Root & Binyan: סקל in Qal = “to stone.”
• Morphology: Imperfect 3mp (יִסְקְלוּ) + 1cp object suffix (נוּ) → יִסְקְלֻנוּ.
• Syntax: Implied subject = “they” (Egyptians); object = “us.” The preceding וְלֹא frames it as the expected negative outcome (“will they not stone us”).
• Effect: The unadorned Qal hits like a thrown rock—direct, active, inevitable if the worship is performed “before their eyes.”

Why These Binyanim Matter Here

• Evaluation before action: The Niphal participle נָכוֹן quietly judges the plan—reality itself says “not fitting.”
• Worship in the active voice: Twice the verse uses Qal נִזְבַּח, placing Israel’s agency and identity on center stage: the people do sacrifice to יְהוָה.
• Public sightlines raise the stakes: The phrase לְעֵינֵיהֶם (before their eyes) turns worship into spectacle; the stem choice for stoning (Qal) depicts the likely crowd reaction without hedging.

Mini Contrast: The Root זבח Across Stems

From Propriety to Peril: The Stem-Shaped Arc

וַיֹּאמֶר opens the floor; נָכוֹן lays down an evaluative baseline; נִזְבַּח twice asserts Israel’s defining act toward יְהוָה; and יִסְקְלֻנוּ names the likely social backlash. The stems choreograph a movement from measured assessment to embodied worship to public danger. In other words, the grammar itself argues: what is right, what we do, and what they will do.

Echoes of the Stem

If a native Biblical Hebrew ear “feels” this line, it feels the steady tread of Qal where action must be simple and real, and the settled weight of Niphal where propriety is judged as a state of affairs. The binyanim don’t merely label verbs; they stage the drama—worship under watchful eyes.