nephaq

This is the plain Aramaic verb for leaving a place. In the Aramaic chapters of Daniel it does no special religious work: it simply reports that something moved from inside to outside, and the interest always lies in what was left behind and who was watching.

What holds its shades together is a threshold. Something is inside, and then it is outside and in view. That one picture covers a captain of the guard setting off on his errand, three men walking out of a blazing furnace when the king calls them, fingers appearing against a lamplit wall, and a river of fire streaming out from a throne. The word tells you only that a boundary was crossed; the drama belongs to the scene.

An official order can cross that boundary too. When a royal decree "goes out" in Daniel 2:13, nothing physically travels. The sentence has left the king's mouth and is now in force. English keeps the same idiom, so a translation can say "the decree went out" and lose nothing.

The natural counterpart is the Aramaic verb for going in (עֲלַל), and in the court scenes of Daniel the two trade off as officials come and go before the king.

Aramaic can reshape a verb so that it names causing an action rather than doing it. Reshaped that way, the verb for going out means making something go out, that is, bringing or taking it out. English needs a different word here, but Aramaic is still using the very same verb.

Every occurrence of this meaning describes one act: the removal of the gold and silver vessels from the temple in Jerusalem. Ezra 5:14 and Ezra 6:5 recall Nebuchadnezzar carrying them off to Babylon, and Daniel 5:2 and Daniel 5:3 reach back for the same verb when Belshazzar calls for those vessels at his feast. The reader hears the plunder named twice, once as record and once as sacrilege.

The verb itself stays neutral. It reports only that something was taken out of a building. The weight in Daniel 5 comes from what was taken and from where, not from anything loaded into the word.