, and 
, etc.We have shown above in Chapter 12 that this verb is derived or formed from the names of things or actions, that is from either a substantive noun or a simple verb. When it is formed from a simple verb it requires an active accusative, namely, a person upon whom the action is visited, and it takes a nominative as the remote cause, namely, the person who causes another to be visited. But when it is formed from a noun, it has the force of a simple verb, the reason for which can be easily understood from what was said there. Truly we have said that by this verb is expressed what anyone does in order that a thing should accomplish its own function, that is, that actually it has its own proper use. So that when this verb is formed from a simple verb, then it signifies that someone brings it about that an efficient cause (or that which we understand as a nominative of simple active verb) may actually accomplish its use. But when it is formed from a noun then it signifies nothing else but that someone simply makes use of a thing. And therefore it happens that this verb doesn’t always have an active accusative, but they are like the verbs of the first form (kal) both active and passive (transitive and intransitive), as we have shown above by many examples. Its forms in the infinitive are , and , etc.
From those the tenses are formed in this manner:
It is characteristic of this form that the 
never changes to a 
as many grammarians think, because they are misled by a text in Hosea 11:3. For 
, as Moses Kimchii rightly states, is a noun, and is the nominative of the succeeding verb 
, the final 
, however, is paragogic, often being added to nouns for the sake of elegance. For as from 
it becomes 
, and from 
it becomes 
so also from 
it becomes 
, and it means a woman who teaches children to walk, to talk, etc. Those who think otherwise plainly do not understand the text. Also, grammarians think that the characteristic of this verb may change into an 
, namely in Isaiah chap. 63, vs. 3. But I think that of this there is no instance given in the Scriptures; but I do not deny that it is permissible. For a verb whose characteristic is 
usually changes 
into 
and chirek into 
. About this matter see Chapter 20.
1. [This term is not used by Spinoza.—M.L.M.]
i “
” That is, the word 
is masculine, and 
is feminine gender, in the same way as occurs in Jeremiah 49:16 
.