הֵם

הוּא masculine הִיא feminine (plural masculine הֵ֫מָּה, הֵם; feminine הֵ֫נָּה, הֵן [the latter only with prefixes]; see these words), pronoun of the 3rd person singular, he, she, used also (in both genders) for the neuter it, Latin is, ea, id. (The א is not orthographic merely, but radical, being written on Moabite and Phoenician inscriptions, though dropped in some of the later dialects. [In Hebrew only Jer 29,23 Kt, and in the proper name אֱלִיהוּ.] Moabite (MI^{6; 27}) and Phoenician (often) הא; Aramaic of Zinjirli הא, once הו (DHM^{Inschr. von Sendschirli 55}); ᵑ7 הוּא, הִיא Syriac , ; Arabic , (for h¥°a, h£°a, W^{SG 104}); Ethiopic we°§t¥, ye°§t£; perhaps also Assyrian šû, šî, himself, herself suffix šu, ši; compare demonstrative šuatu, šiati (see Krae^{BAS. i. 383 & references}, W^{SG 98, 105} Dl^{§ 55b, 57}). In the Pentateuch, הוא is of common gender, the feminine form הִיא occurring only 11 times, namely 1 Mos 14,2; 1 Mos 20,5; 1 Mos 38,25 (see Masora here), 3 Mos 11,39; 3 Mos 13,10; 3 Mos 13,21; 3 Mos 16,31; 3 Mos 20,17; 3 Mos 21,9; 4 Mos 5,13; 4 Mos 5,14. The punctuators, however, sought to assimilate the usage of the Pentateuch to that of the rest of the OT, and accordingly wherever הוא was construed as a feminine pointed it הִוא (as a Qr perpetuum). Outside the Pentateuch the same Qr occurs 1 Kong 17,15; Es 30,33; Job 31,11a — probably for the sake of removing gramm. anomalies: five instances of the converse change, namely of היא to be read as הוּא, occur for a similar reason, 1 Kong 17,15 (וַתּאֹכַל הוּאוָֿהִיא to be read as וַתּאֹכַל הִיאוָֿהוּא, on account of the feminine verb) Sl 73,16; Job 31,11b (כי הוא זמה והיא עָוֺן פלילים to be read as כי היא זמה והוא עון פלילים), Praed 5,8; 1 Kron 29,16. The origin of the peculiarity in the Pentateuch is uncertain. It can hardly be a real archaism : for the fact that arab., Aramaic, & Ethiopic have distinct forms for masculine & feminine shews that both must have formed part of the original Semitic stock, and consequently of Hebrew as well, from its earliest existence as an independent language. Nor is the peculiarity confined to the Pentateuch: in the Manuscript of the Later Prophets, of A.D. , now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile by Strack (1876), the feminine occurs written הוא (see the passages cited in the Adnotationes Criticae, p. 026). In Phoenician both masculine and feminine are alike written הא (CIS i. 1 Kron 1,9 מלך צדק הא, 1 Kron 1,13 מלאכת הא, 1 Kron 3,10 אדם הא, 1 Kron 1,11 ממלכת הא, 1 Kron 93,2; 1 Kron 94,2), though naturally this would be read as hu° or hi° as occasion required. Hence, as ᵐ5 shews that in the older Hebrew MSS. the scriptio plena was not yet generally introduced, it is probably that originally הא was written for both genders in Hebrew likewise, and that the epicene הוא in the Pentateuch originated at a comparatively late epoch in the transmission of the text — perhaps in connection with the assumption, which is partly borne out by facts (compare De^{ZKWL 1880, pp. 393-399}), that in the older language feminine forms were more sparingly used than subsequently.)

הִמּוֺ₉ (Ezra), הִמּוֺן₃ (Daniel), pronoun 3 plural they, them (= Biblical Hebrew הֵם, הֵמָּה, q. v., but the more original forms. Egyptian Aramaic המו CIS^{145 B 4} (Cooke²⁰⁷),^{149 A 1}, S-C^{Pap. C 7, 10} +; not ᵑ7 Syriac, which use אִנּוּן , , instead; Arabic , . The n in הִמּוֺן, as in דֵּין, אִלֵּין, by the side of זֶה, אֵלֶּה, ; Nö^{M 86} W^{CG 106}); — they, them:
\ \ a. as nominative Ezr 5,11 אֲבַחְנָא הִמּוֺ עַבְדוֺהִי we are his servants (construction as in Syriac, Nö^{§ 312} D Matt 5,13, K^{§ 87. 3}).
\ \ b. as accusative (in Biblical Aramaic, as in Syriac, there being no verbal suffix of 3 plural; so Egyptian Aramaic Cooke^{76 B 4}, S-C^{Pap. E 5} +), En 2:34 והדקת הִמּוֺ and crushed them, v35; 3:22; Ezr 4,10; Ezr 4,23; Ezr 5,5; Ezr 5,12; Ezr 5,14 (twice in verse); Ezr 5,15; Ezr 7,17. — compare אִנּוּן.