וְהַנֶּ֜פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאכַ֣ל בָּשָׂ֗ר מִזֶּ֤בַח הַשְּׁלָמִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לַיהוָ֔ה וְטֻמְאָתֹ֖ו עָלָ֑יו וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מֵעַמֶּֽיהָ׃ (Leviticus 7:20)
And the person who eats flesh from the slaughter-offering of peace which is for YHWH and his impurity is upon him that person shall be cut off from his people
Verbal Landscape of the Verse
This verse contains two verbs of critical legal and theological weight:
1. תֹּאכַל — “eats”
2. וְנִכְרְתָה — “shall be cut off”
Each verb represents a distinct binyan and communicates contrasting grammatical voices—active versus passive. Their choice is not random but paints a literary and theological contrast in the system of divine justice.
Dissecting the First Verb: תֹּאכַל
Binyan: Qal
– Root: אָכַל (to eat)
– Form: Imperfect, 3rd person feminine singular (matching the feminine subject הַנֶּפֶשׁ)
– Morphology: The form תֹּאכַל consists of:
– Prefix תּ־: third person feminine singular imperfect prefix
– The vowel pattern ֹ־ַ is consistent with the Qal imperfect form.
Function and Voice
– This is a straightforward active construction.
– The subject הַנֶּפֶשׁ is doing the action—eating.
– The verb’s position in the clause (directly after the relative particle אֲשֶׁר) defines the behavior that will merit punishment.
Semantics of Qal Here
– Qal is the “default” stem—think of it as the trunk from which the other stems branch.
– It expresses direct, unambiguous agency: the person herself is eating.
– The Qal’s clarity underscores volition and personal culpability.
Other Binyanim of אָכַל
– Niphal: rarely used, but could imply passive “was eaten.”
– Hiphil: does not appear for this root; causative form is not attested.
– In contrast to the vivid Qal here, a Niphal would dilute responsibility—hence, Qal is purposefully chosen.
Dissecting the Second Verb: וְנִכְרְתָה
Binyan: Niphal
– Root: כָּרַת (to cut, cut off)
– Form: Niphal, imperfect, 3rd person feminine singular
– Morphology:
– Prefix נִ־: signals Niphal stem
– Internal pattern ְ־ְ־ָה: characteristic of feminine Niphal imperfect
– Ending ־תָה: 3fs imperfect suffix
Function and Voice
– Niphal expresses the passive voice: “shall be cut off.”
– The subject (הַנֶּפֶשׁ) is not performing the cutting, but is acted upon.
– It signals divine agency: YHWH is the implicit agent, the one who carries out the judgment.
Why Not Qal or Piel?
– Qal would yield she will cut off—grammatically unacceptable here.
– Piel (intensive) would exaggerate human action.
– Only Niphal suits a judicial passive—cut off by decree, not by human hand.
Visual Comparison of the Binyanim
| Binyan | Verb | Voice | Subject Role | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qal | תֹּאכַל | Active | Agent (does the eating) | Personal responsibility, conscious transgression |
| Niphal | וְנִכְרְתָה | Passive | Patient (receives divine punishment) | Legal sentence imposed, suggests divine agency |
The Rhythm of Retribution: Literary Insight
There’s a chilling symmetry between תֹּאכַל and וְנִכְרְתָה. The Qal form delivers a bold declaration: this soul chose to eat. The Niphal follows like a divine gavel: and she shall be cut off. The switch in voice from active to passive mimics a courtroom drama—testimony followed by sentence.
Moreover, וְנִכְרְתָה echoes throughout Leviticus as the signature phrase for divine exclusion. It’s not just punishment; it’s removal from sacred community, carried out by a force higher than human judgment.
How the Binyan Shapes the Verdict
In this verse, binyan is not just grammar—it’s theology. The Qal form affirms human agency and moral accountability. The Niphal form anchors divine sovereignty and legal execution. Together, they orchestrate a sacred choreography of cause and effect.
By selecting these binyanim, the text does more than inform—it implicates and sentences. The person acts (Qal); God responds (Niphal). The binyanim themselves tell the story.
