The Shabas table song "Tzur mishelo achalnu" contains the following line:
יִבָּנֶה הַמִּקְדָּשׁ עִיר צִיּוֹן תְּמַלֵּא
yibane hamikdash ir Tziyon t'male
the Temple should be built; you should fill the city of Zion
It seems so unpoetic to have the first half, "yibane", in nif'al construction (and passive/intransitive), and the second, "t'male", in piel construction (and active/transitive). They could easily be balanced:
יִבָּנֶה הַמִּקְדָּשׁ עִיר צִיּוֹן תִּמָּלֵא
yibane hamikdash ir Tziyon timale
the Temple should be built; the city of Zion should be filled
— with both in nif'al construction (and passive/intransitive). (We do find timale in that form in Shir Hashirim 5:2.)
Why aren't they balanced?
Note that I wrote the above question based on the unpoeticness of the switch in construction. That is, I contend that timale is better (after yibane) and ask why it's not used. I suppose unpoeticness is arguable. However, even if both forms (timale and t'male) are equally poetic, my question stands (albeit weaker): why switch constructions mid-sentence?
(Note that there is at least one prayer book in which timale is used, matching yibane: in "הסידור המדוייק איש מצליח (מהדורא רביעית) לפי מנהגי ונוסח הספרדים ועדות המזרח", according to a report I received via e-mail. But that's the only one I know of. I've checked a number of (mostly Ashk'nazi) prayer books and Shabas-song books, and all had t'male.)