Thursday, May 28, 2020

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- about that dagesh....


So there’s a comment on my Talmud teacher’s blog about object suffixes saying that when there’s a dagesh in the nun, it’s 3rd person and when there’s not a dagesh, it’s first person.

Meaning that in Genesis 1:26 b’tsalmenu and ki-d’mutenu have to be 1st plural.

But that doesn’t explain Genesis 3:22. Transliterating with double consonants where dagesh appears, it says k’achad mimmennu. How do you translate that?

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ, לָדַעַת, טוֹב וָרָע; וְעַתָּה פֶּן-יִשְׁלַח יָדוֹ, וְלָקַח גַּם מֵעֵץ הַחַיִּים, וְאָכַל, וָחַי לְעֹלָם.

Well, normally mimmennu is translated “as one with us”. But see Numbers 9:12 where it has to be 3rd singular.
לֹא-יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד-בֹּקֶר, וְעֶצֶם לֹא יִשְׁבְּרוּ-בוֹ; כְּכָל-חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח, יַעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ.
Don’t leave [any] of it until morning, but don’t break a bone of it; according to all the law of the Passover he shall make it.

This is the law of the Little Passover to be observed when somebody is disqualified from the normal Passover.

So once again, the answer I keep giving is that it’s the context, stupid. I wrote last week about “us” meaning “man and Gd together” in both the creation narrative and the Gan Eden narrative. Especially in the latter, there’s nothing else it can mean, since we know the angels don’t know good from evil. So I’m covered.

Thursday, May 21, 2020

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- object suffixes and "our"

After what I just said about pronoun suffixes, I have a curve to throw you.

This goes all the way back to April 2018 when I discussed Genesis 1:26 and showed that naaseh was mistaken for a masculine plural qal verb when it’s really a masculine singular nifal. The other answer was that verse 27 uses elohim with a singular verb, so there’s no reason to think that the verses have different grammar.

But there’s another issue in verse 26; it also contains the words b’tsalmenu and ki-d’mutenu, the endings which “normally” reflect 1st plural usage.

Well, not normally, only in some spots. In a new pass through Torah while finishing Narrating the Torah, I became aware of verses that show that the -enu ending is also 3rd singular. See Genesis 18:22, 43:9, and 44:14, and Exodus 22:20. In each of those verses there’s an -enu (OK in 43:9 it’s just -nu) which can’t be anything except a masculine singular.

So the real translation of Genesis 1:26, which brings out what all the grammar and words mean, could be “Gd said the making of man is decreed with his image according to his likeness,” with “his” referring to adam, not to elohim.

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ.

Some of you are saying “But I distinctly remember it saying man was created in Gd’s image.” You’re thinking of verse 27.

וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם:

The only thing in this material, implying that man was created in Gd’s image, is the trop under b’tselem elohim, a mercha and a tipcha, the first a conjuction, the second cutting elohim off from bara oto. This impression is contradicted immediately after the etnach by saying “male and female He created them”.  This is a topic order clause emphasizing “male and female”. Gd is incorporeal and has no simanim of gender.

Now remember that the preposition b’ can be translated a lot of ways other than “in”: “against, with, by means of, at the time of” are examples. What if we think of it as “by means of the image of Gd”? What if tselem means “imaging, the faculty of creating images”? This would mean that Gd gave an image to humans, according to His powers, not according to His own form – which He doesn’t have.

What I’m getting at is something I say on the Fact-Checking thread: translation is not meaning.

Now let’s look at another consequence of b’tselem as meaning Gd’s faculty of imaging. Look back at verse 26. From this new standpoint, it could mean “by means of His power of creating images,” and then we could have “according to His likeness.” What likeness? Well, a few verses later we have the very first specification of Shabbat and Gd observing it Himself. Humans being the likeness of Gd, they should follow His example. 

In the next narrative, the Gan Eden narrative, Gd says “the man is become as one of Us,” meaning people are now like Gd in being able to distinguish good from evil. In midrash, that leads directly to the next statement, what if man eats from the Tree of Life and lives forever? Then nothing else on earth will be able to distinguish Gd from man. I mean, the angels can’t distinguish good from evil; they simply obey Gd’s commands without thinking about it. That’s what they’re for. Now, not only does man have somebody to argue against his actions – his wife, his helper k’negdo – but so does Gd. That plays out in Avraham’s argument about destroying the Cities of the Plain, and it plays a role in the book of Job. But Avraham and Job are not immortal because Gd expelled people from the Gan before they could eat from the other tree.

I emailed my Talmud teacher with the citations using the singular object suffixes and, with my permission, he posted the citations I give on his blog. So now some people are turning this over in their minds to see what falls out. I just said what fell out when I turned it over.

You never get to the end of it.

Thursday, May 14, 2020

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- object suffixes

So somebody who was reading the old Bit at a Time thread was doing his job and asked a question I haven’t dealt with here. Until now.

One of the features of Biblical Hebrew is that conjugated verbs, like aspectless verbs, can take personal suffixes as direct objects.

An example of the aspectless verb situation is Genesis 2:4.
אֵ֣לֶּה תֽוֹלְד֧וֹת הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּי֗וֹם עֲשׂ֛וֹת יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם:

The bolded word is actually a prepositional phrase: b meaning “at the time of”; hibar, the nifal aspectless for “create”, and -am, a personal suffix meaning “them”. The whole phrase means “at the time of [Gd] decreeing their creation [out of nothing].”

Here are examples of four of the personal suffixes.

Exodus 1:22
כב וַיְצַ֣ו פַּרְעֹ֔ה לְכָל־עַמּ֖וֹ לֵאמֹ֑ר כָּל־הַבֵּ֣ן הַיִּלּ֗וֹד הַיְאֹ֨רָה֙ תַּשְׁלִיכֻ֔הוּ וְכָל־הַבַּ֖ת תְּחַיּֽוּן:
The bolded word has the 3rd singular masculine suffix so, “throw him”, the son of the Israelitess.

Exodus 2:3
ג וְלֹא־יָֽכְלָ֣ה עוֹד֘ הַצְּפִינוֹ֒ וַתִּֽקַּֽח־לוֹ֙ תֵּ֣בַת גֹּ֔מֶא וַתַּחְמְרָ֥ה בַֽחֵמָ֖ר וּבַזָּ֑פֶת וַתָּ֤שֶׂם בָּהּ֙ אֶת־הַיֶּ֔לֶד וַתָּ֥שֶׂם בַּסּ֖וּף עַל־שְׂפַ֥ת הַיְאֹֽר:
The suffix is 3rd singular feminine, referring to tevah so, “pitched it with pitch”, that is Yocheved coated the box with pitch to make it waterproof.

Exodus 3:13
יג וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:
This is 1st singular, “sent me”, Mosheh, to you…

Exodus 5:3
ג וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ אֱלֹהֵ֥י הָֽעִבְרִ֖ים נִקְרָ֣א עָלֵ֑ינוּ נֵֽלְכָה־נָּ֡א דֶּ֩רֶךְ֩ שְׁל֨שֶׁת יָמִ֜ים בַּמִּדְבָּ֗ר וְנִזְבְּחָה֙ לַֽיהוָֹ֣ה אֱלֹהֵ֔ינוּ פֶּ֨ן־יִפְגָּעֵ֔נוּ בַּדֶּ֖בֶר א֥וֹ בֶחָֽרֶב:
This is 1st plural, “let He strike us”.

Now. In first person you will always see -n- before the final vowel. In 2nd person, the ending always starts with a consonant and there are no worries. In 3rd person, there’s a problem. The feminine ending is -ah. When the conjugated verb ends in a vowel, it’s hard to say that combination. Hebrew will stick in either a -h- or an -n-. If it’s an -n-, it will take dagesh. 

So: Deuteronomy 1:38
יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן הָעֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ הוּא יָבֹא שָׁמָּה אֹתוֹ חַזֵּק כִּי־הוּא יַנְחִלֶנָּה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל:
“…he [Joshua] will cause to inherit it…” literally inherit her, the Holy Land, because erets is feminine.

Before you ask, these suffixes work with both imperfect and perfect aspect verbs. Most of the ones above were imperfect, but shlachani was based on perfect aspect – I think. The unsuffixed perfect aspect would be shalach. I don’t know why shva replaces the qamatz unless it has something to do with the suffix.

These are not common. Torah frequently uses a suffixed form of et, but only when there’s a non-suffixed form of et that goes with a noun.

So say thanks to the guy who asked the question on the other Hebrew thread, because if you’ve been reading on your own you might have come across these and you didn’t know what you were looking at.

There’s just one little wrinkle and I’ll talk about it next week.

Thursday, May 7, 2020

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- a little more et


A little more et won’t kill you. When you see the collective et (tseire vowel) with kal, make sure you think “all”. When you see the distinctive et (segol and hyphen) with kal, make sure you think “every”.

This is especially important with erets.

Genesis 1:1 deals with heaven and earth as wholes. This is part of the basis for the midrash that the creation story isn’t about the exact order in which things happened. We don’t get the details.
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ:

Here’s Exodus 20:11. Notice the contrast with the tseire version in Genesis 1:1; this verse is dealing with the four different parts of the creation – actually five when you get to yom ha-shabbat. There is no definite article with yom, but it is understood because this is a construct phrase.
כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת-יָמִים עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֶת-הַיָּם וְאֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-בָּם, וַיָּנַח, בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי; עַל-כֵּן, בֵּרַךְ יְהוָה אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת—וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ
Because in six days **** made the heavens and the earth, the sea and every thing that is in them, He rested on the seventh day; that's how, **** blessed the Shabbat day -- He showed its sanctity.

When there’s a restrictive sense to erets, we get the segol version as in Deuteronomy 3:8:
נִּקַּח בָּעֵת הַהִוא אֶת־הָאָרֶץ מִיַּד שְׁנֵי מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן מִנַּחַל אַרְנֹן עַד־הַר חֶרְמוֹן:
We took at that time the land from the two Emori kings that are across the Yarden, from the brook of Arnon as far as Mt. Chermon.

It’s pretty obvious that the only land concerned here is that of Sichon and Og. It can’t possibly mean all of the world. That’s why it has segol.

We have a problem in Leviticus 26:42. We have three contrasted covenants using the segol version, and we also have erets as a definite noun with NO et. Why not? The last phrase is in topic order, not normal word order. The verb has a future sense, not narrative past, and not with an adverbial like in Exodus 20:11.
וְזָכַרְתִּי אֶת־בְּרִיתִי יַעֲקוֹב וְאַף אֶת־בְּרִיתִי יִצְחָק וְאַף אֶת־בְּרִיתִי אַבְרָהָם אֶזְכֹּר וְהָאָרֶץ אֶזְכֹּר:
...such that I call to mind My covenant Yaaqov, also My covenant Yitschaq and also My covenant Avraham I shall call to mind and the earth I shall call to mind.

Leviticus 7:2-4 rings the changes, as Exodus 29 rang the changes on agentless verbs.
ב בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת־הָעֹלָה יִשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת־הָאָשָׁם וְאֶת־דָּמוֹ יִזְרֹק עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב:
ג וְאֶת־כָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ יַקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ אֵת הָאַלְיָה וְאֶת־הַחֵלֶב הַמְכַסֶּה אֶת־הַקֶּרֶב:
ד וְאֵת שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיֹת וְאֶת־הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עֲלֵיהֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל־הַכְּסָלִים וְאֶת־הַיֹּתֶרֶת עַל־הַכָּבֵד עַל־הַכְּלָיֹת יְסִירֶנָּה:

In verse 2, the olah is referred to here in contrast with the asham and they both take the segol version of et. The blood is being considered as a specific part of the sacrifice so it does the same. Same thing for the chelev at the start of verse 3; there is more than one place to get chelev and the et kal shows that each one of them is meant.

In verse 3 the alyah, the “fat tail”, is considered as an entire entity, separate unto itself, and there are halakhot that specifically address it in Mishnah and Gemara.

In verse 4, the kidneys are another entity, like the alyah, and require the tseire version; the segol version is used with the chelev because it is considered in contrast to the actual kidneys and also to the other kind of chelev. The yoteret is listed in contrast to the liver of which it is part.

One special thing about the segolate et is that you will often find a suffixed version of et nearby: otam, oto, etc, see this lesson for the chart. https://pajheil.blogspot.com/2018/01/21st-century-bible-hebrew-genesis-117.html

This is in contrast to putting an object suffix directly on the verb, which I will discuss next time.

Thursday, April 30, 2020

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- participles

Some of you are screaming that I haven’t covered everything. No more I have. I haven’t talked about participles. Here’s the deal.

There are three verb forms in Biblical Hebrew that are gerundive, but apparently with different functions.

One is the progressive. It often is used gerundively and therefore works substantively but only when prefixed with the definite article. See Genesis 48:5.
 וְעַתָּה שְׁנֵי־בָנֶיךָ הַנּוֹלָדִים לְךָ בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם עַד־בֹּאִי אֵלֶיךָ מִצְרַיְמָה לִי־הֵם אֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה כִּרְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן יִהְיוּ־לִי:

Ha-noladim means “who have been born”; it’s a modifying substantive from the nifal binyan. As such, it legitimizes Yosef’s sons. This might be the source of the midrash that their mother converted, because only the child of a Jewess can be considered a Jew. As a progressive, ha-noladim takes on the immediate past connotation in this context.

The aspectless gerundive is also naturally substantivized. The version that takes prepositions can operate as an adverb, as you see in Exodus 13:17, but the progressive and participle can’t.
וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת־הָעָם וְלֹא־נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא כִּי ׀ אָמַר אֱלֹהִים פֶּן־יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה:

This pretty much means “at the time of their seeing”.

The first participle I came across in Torah was Genesis 48:4 which goes like this:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי הִנְנִי מַפְרְךָ וְהִרְבִּיתִךָ וּנְתַתִּיךָ לִקְהַל עַמִּים וְנָתַתִּי אֶת־הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ אֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם:

The bolded word is a hifil participle formed from the progressive, which most people would nowadays call an active present participle. Notice that it has an object suffix.  The reason we need a gerundive here is because of hin’ni, a relative of emphatic hineh, which has to be followed by a substantive. It’s bad grammar to use a progressive with a personal suffix. The quasi-descriptive nature of this word is not suitable for an aspectless verb. There aren’t many true participles in Torah, but this is one of them.

Sunday, April 26, 2020

DIY -- in a world....

In my town our favorite grocery, a small business, hasn't had yeast or flour for at least a week. There are ways around that. I found an online outlet where I could order flour while I still had some in the house. They had several brands. You wouldn't recognize some of the brands but possibly they only  sell to food services including bakeries so that's more of a recommendation than a problem. The delivery date in the carrier's email is 10 business days from when I placed the order.

Once you get your flour you can breed yeast. I've posted about this before but I can expand on it now.

Breeding yeast is called brewing sourdough starter. You need at least a cup of rye flour or two cups of white wheat flour. Rye flour has more natural sugar in it and brews up quicker. You can use rye starter with wheat flour and get a good product, as well as going straight to rye and pumpernickel bread. I have never tried brewing starter with whole wheat flour but a post on the web says it works the same way as with white wheat flour.

You need a jar that will hold a quart of starter at least, and a warm place for it to brew in. You need room in your fridge to store the starter between batches -- if you have a "between batches".

Put 1/4 cup warm water and 1/4 cup flour in your jar, stir smooth, and let it sit uncovered 24 hours. If you are using rye flour, repeat this twice more and on the fourth day you should see bubbles of different sizes. With wheat flour, you will need to keep feeding the starter at least three more days before you see bubbles.

You now have one or two cups of starter. You need to test its health. Take half your starter and give the rest a feeding, then leave it out uncovered. If the test fails you need the rest of the starter to be warm so you can re-build.

We'll do the test with French bread which is simple even if it does take a couple of days. Take half a cup of starter, add half a cup of warm water and a cup of wheat flour, stir and let sit covered 8 hours in a warm place. Add the same amount of water and flour at the end of 8 hours and then once more, which sits overnight. This process is called building your sour.

In the morning, add two cups flour, mix thoroughly. This is your sponge; let it sit an hour. Now add at least two more cups flour plus 1 teaspoon salt, and knead into an elastic dough, adding more flour as it gets sticky. Slam it down on your kneading board once in a while. Put back in your bowl and let sit covered in a warm place at least an hour or until double. Do this once more. Then shape into your baguettes, cover with a damp cloth and sit in a warm place one hour or until double. Preheat oven to 425, bake 10 minutes, reduce heat to 375 and bake another 15 minutes. Turn the oven off, take the bread out, turn over and tap the bottom. It should sound hollow.  Put it in and close the oven and let it cool gradually.

If the bread didn't rise as much as you wanted, don't worry about it. You can slice the baguettes longwise for sandwiches or French bread pizza, or diagonally for tartines. If you have been feeding your starter daily in the  meantime, the next batch should work out better.

Personally, I prefer to make bread rolls than bread loaves. You can freeze the rolls and thaw them individually for sandwiches or as dippers for soup and stew; they make great mini-pizzas. So when you eat up the old test, do a new one but instead of making baguettes, divide your dough into 6 to 10 pieces, roll into balls, put on a cookie sheet, and flatten slightly. Cover and let sit in a warm place for an hour, then bake 15 minutes at 375. Turn the oven off and let them finish baking.

You can also make mini-baguettes for hot dog rolls.

You can also make pretzels with part of the dough. Cut about one third of the dough into six pieces. Roll between your hands into long ropes. Now make a pretzel shape with each rope. Glaze with mixed egg yolk and water, and sprinkle on a a little kosher salt. Put straight into a hot oven for 15 minutes, then turn the oven off. Voila, soft pretzels! By the time they are done, your rolls are risen and you can bake those.

Use the same glaze on the rolls and you can sprinkle them with sesame or poppy seeds; the glaze will hold the seeds on.

You can add two tablespoons of starter into any recipe for a heartier flavor: pancakes; english muffins; croissants.You can even make croissants with nothing but sourdough, just remember they'll come out less fluffy. They'll basically be hearty crescent rolls.

Now. I swear by George Greenstein's Jewish Baker book, but he does not have a recipe for 100% whole wheat sourdough bread. I worked out that it's just like any other 100% whole wheat bread, but you let the sponge brew 24 hours and you let your bread dough rise 24 hours.

This part is the care and feeding of sourdough starter. When you take out starter for a batch, immediately feed the rest. Give it a day to bubble, then put a lid on the jar and put it in the fridge. Next time you want to bake, take it out a day in advance to warm up, and feed it before baking. Make sure to feed it at least once a week. You can stretch that to two weeks; longer than two weeks and you may want to start over. Think of your starter as a pet that needs regular care -- it doesn't eat as often as a dog or cat, but it does need to eat.

One last tip. You can brew starter because the yeast that is naturally on the grain survives the milling process. Grain also has naturally occurring bacteria colonies. While you brew your starter, it will develop a SCOBY, Symbiotic Colony of Bacteria and Yeast. It's a thick layer on the top. This in turn can breed mold. If your SCOBY gets fuzzy, scoop it off and throw it away.

Because of the bacteria, NEVER eat starter raw. In fact NEVER eat raw flour products of any kind. Cookie dough or pasta can be a double threat because they have eggs in them and eggs are known to carry salmonella. Always COOK FLOUR PRODUCTS BEFORE CONSUMING.

Here's how to make your baked stuff last longer: hardtack. As long as you let it cool completely, and keep it in an airtight container, hardtack will keep for years. And since modern flour doesn't start out with weevil eggs in it, you don't have to worry about weevils in the hardtack like those poor sailors had centuries ago. What you must do, however, is prick it thickly with a fork all over, or it will puff up when you bake it. And when you eat it you must soak it in something because it gets hard enough to break your teeth. There are hardtack recipes on the web; none of them use yeast so you don't even need any starter to make it.

Now, how about those huge flour orders. You get 8 bags, 5 lbs each, to a case. 5 lbs of flour makes two batches of bread. Challah is an exception; you get 4 loaves to a recipe so 1 batch per bag*. So a case of flour will last you however long 16 batches of bread or rolls will last you, or 8 Shabbats for challah. A bag of flour has a shelf life of two years as long as you keep it cool and dry; after that its ability to rise goes downhill until it's basically powdered cement. So if you, like a lot of people in my town, are learning to bake from scratch, not from the box, don't be afraid to buy giant economy size quantities of flour. You have two years to use it up, and you can use it to make pasta or egg noodles, as well as tons of different snacks.

And just because you buy whole wheat flour doesn't mean you're limited to bread. Look on the web; almost anything you would make with white flour, you can make with whole wheat.

Emergency organizations have been telling people for decades to build stashes for emergency situations. Nobody ever imagined that stores would run out of flour. Lots of things are going on today that nobody ever imagined. Don't just plan for "the worst"; plan for "the unimaginable."

* Our foremothers didn't have domesticated yeast until about 150 years ago. They bought their "yeast" (starter) from the rebbetsin, probably on Wednesday, hit the market Thursday to get flour with the rest of their Shabbat provisions, let their sponge develop overnight, and proofed and baked on Friday. The sugar in the recipe helps the bread rise, but you'll have to put up with loaves that are a little flatter than with domestic yeast. But it's way better than going without.

Thursday, April 23, 2020

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- all the agentless verbs you could ever want


I mentioned evidence of how the agentless forms play together.  Here it is: Exodus 21:29-31.
כט וְאִם שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם־בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת:
ל אִם־כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יוּשַׁת עָלָיו:
לא אוֹ־בֵן יִגָּח אוֹ־בַת יִגָּח כַּמִּשְׁפָּט הַזֶּה יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ:
In verse 29, a dangerous ox kills somebody; the term huad is a hufal. It’s a legal definition of the ox’s status as “dangerous” because it gored two days in a row. The owner has been given notice of this status by an official source.

The owner doesn’t guard it properly, and it kills somebody so the ox is stoned. This is nifal. It’s the legal sentence imposed (presumably by an earthly court because this is not one of the sins listed in Mishnah Kritot 1:1) to prevent the ox from killing again.

The last word of the verse is yumat, another hufal definition. The owner is “a dead man” according to legal definition BUT this is not listed among the capital crimes so, since there’s no previous legislation that it’s a death penalty case, there’s no mot to go with the yumat.

In verse 30, we have yushat twice. This is qual and it is the imperfect aspect. Since the owner is now legally defined as a “dead man”, you might think he could be liable to the death penalty. In fact, counterintuitively, he is fined. The fine isn’t compensation for the death of whatever the ox gored. It’s redemption for the owner, comparable to paying restitution for a theft.

Verse 31 has the nifal yeaseh. This is another legal ruling. The fine is a dead end. The owner of the ox is not subject to capital punishment. The parents of the dead boy or girl cannot appeal to a court of 23 and get a death penalty, using the grounds that this was not an adult who was responsible for his or her own safety, but a child.

The only agentless binyan missing from this sequence is pual, which has two roles in law. One is that the situation falls short of being eligible for a court case, a less-than-hufal situation. The other is that there is more than one way to fall short of being eligible for a court case.