אותיות מיותרות או חסרות

נושא זה עדיין לא עבר ביקורת עורך

Extra Final Yud

Throughout Tanakh, commentators have noted many words which have an extra "chirik -yud" at the end which appears to serves no grammatical purpose. For example, Shemot 15:6 reads "נֶאְדָּרִי בַּכֹּחַ", while the expected form would be "נֶאְדָּר בַּכֹּח" (compare "נֶאְדָּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ", just five verses later in Shemot 15:11).

Explaining the phenomenon

• These exceptional forms usually occur in poetic passages and are considered by many to simply be an aesthetic form, "לתפארת הקריאה" or "לצחות הלשון". 
• See, though, HaKetav VeHakabbalah¹ on Shemot 15:6 who asserts that the form often conveys that the action or description mentioned is a continual one.

Examples

Below are many examples where commentators note an apparently unnecessary "י".  These are followed by examples where there is dispute, and some suggest that the final "י" is necessary.

• "גְּנֻבְתִי יוֹם וּגְנֻבְתִי לָיְלָה" (Bereshit 31:39), "אֹסְרִי לַגֶּפֶן עִירֹה"  (Bereshit 49:11),²"נֶאְדָּרִי בַּכֹּחַ" (Shemot 15:6), "שֹׁכְנִי סְנֶה" (Devarim 33:16), "מְלֵאֲתִי מִשְׁפָּט" (Yeshayahu 1:21), "חֹצְבִי מָרוֹם קִבְרוֹ חֹקְקִי בַסֶּלַע" (Yeshayahu 22:16), ["כֻּלָּם סָרֵי סוֹרְרִים" (Yirmeyahu 6:28)], "שֹׁכְנִי בְּחַגְוֵי הַסֶּלַע תֹּפְשִׂי מְרוֹם גִּבְעָה" (Yirmeyahu 49:16), "אֹהַבְתִּי לָדוּשׁ" (Hoshea 10:11), "שֹׁכְנִי בְחַגְוֵי סֶלַע" (Ovadiah 1:3), "שֹׁכְנִי לְבָדָד" (Mikhah 7:14), "רֹעִי הָאֱלִיל עֹזְבִי הַצֹּאן" (Zekharyah 11:17), "מְלׇשְׁנִ֬י] (מלושני) בַסֵּ֨תֶר]" (Tehillim 101:5), "לְכׇל עֲוֺנֵכִי... לְכׇל תַּחֲלוּאָיְכִי.. חַיָּיְכִי הַמְעַטְּרֵכִי...נְעוּרָיְכִי" (Tehillim 103:3-5), "עַל דִּבְרָתִי מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק" (Tehillim 110:4), "הַמַּגְבִּיהִי לָשָׁבֶת... הַמַּשְׁפִּילִי לִרְאוֹת... מְקִימִי... לְהוֹשִׁיבִי... מוֹשִׁיבִי" (Tehillim 113:5-9), "הַהֹפְכִי הַצּוּר" (Tehillim 114:8), "שׁוּבִי נַפְשִׁי לִמְנוּחָיְכִי כִּי י״י גָּמַל עָלָיְכִי" (Tehillim 116:7), "בְּתוֹכֵכִי יְרוּשָׁלָ͏ִם" (Tehillim 116:19), "הַיֹּשְׁבִי בַּשָּׁמָיִם" (Tehillim 123:1), "בְּתוֹכֵכִי מִצְרָיִם" (Tehillim 135:9), "רַבָּתִי עָם...רַבָּתִי בַגּוֹיִם שָׂרָתִי בַּמְּדִינוֹת" (Eikhah 1:1),
• "וְהוּא יָרָה הַחֵצִי לְהַעֲבִרוֹ" (Shemuel I 20:36) - See Rid. Unlike most of the examples here which appear to be poetic forms, this is in a prose section.

Disputed examples:

• "בְּנִי אֲתֹנוֹ" (Bereshit 49:11) – Many assume that the word "בְּנִי" is a poetic form for "בן",  translating the phrase as: "his donkey's colt". Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor that here the "י" is an integral part of the word, signifying possession (meaning: "my son"). Yaakov addresses Yehuda, the subject of the verbs in the verse, directly, saying to him: "My son will tether his foal to the vine, and his donkey to the bough."³
• "עׇזִּי וְזִמְרָת יָהּ" (Shemot 15:2, Yeshayahu 12:2, Tehillim 118:14) – See Rashi that the "י" is superfluous and that the word should be understood as if written "עז", a noun in the construct state. The verse would read: "The might of Hashem... was for me a salvation".  Cf. Ibn Ezra that the final "י" might instead be necessary, a sign of the first person possessive (my might). One would have then expected "עֻזִּי" rather than "עׇזִּי", but Ibn Ezra claims there is no difference between the two forms.
• "הַצְּבִי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל בָּמוֹתֶיךָ חָלָל" (Shemuel II 1:9) – Though most assume that "צְּבִי" here is a noun meaning "beauty," see Ibn Ezra on Bereshit 49:11, that the "י" is extraneous.
• "קִרְיַת מְשׂוֹשִׂי" (Yirmeyahu 49:25) – Compare Rashi and Metzudat Zion.
• "מִלִּפְנֵי אָדוֹן חוּלִי אָרֶץ" (Tehillim 114:7) – According to Rashi and one opinion in Ibn Ezra, the "י" of the word "חולי" is superfluous, and the word means: "the one who bore (i.e. created)". Others disagree and suggest that the "י" is an indication of the feminine imperative, with the verse meaning: "Before the Master, tremble O' earth" (opinion in Ibn Ezra, Radak).
• "מַרְכְּבוֹת עַמִּי נָדִיב" (Shir HaShirim 6:12) – Most suggest that this is equivalent to "עם נדיב", but see the commentary attributed to R"Y Kara that "עַמִּי נָדִיב" is the name of an artisan who made the chariots, with the phrase reading: "the chariots of Ami Nadiv".

Extra Final Vav

Throughout Tanakh commentators have noted many words which have an extra final "ו" which appears to serves no grammatical purpose. For example, Bemidbar 24:3 reads "בִּלְעָם בְּנוֹ בְעֹר" while the expected form would be "בִּלְעָם בֶּן בְּעֹר"  (as per Bemidbar 22:5).

Explanation

• Many commentators imply that this is simply the way of the text, but see Shadal Bereshit 1:24 who suggests that it is an Aramaic phenomenon.

Examples

• Examples
• חַיְתוֹ – Bereshit 1:24 (וְחַיְתוֹ אֶרֶץ), Zephanyah 2:14 (כׇּל חַיְתוֹ גוֹי), Tehillim 50:10 and 104:20 (חַיְתוֹ יָעַר), Yeshayahu 56:9 (חַיְתוֹ שָׂדָי)
• בְּנוֹ – Bemidbar 23:18 (בְּנוֹ צִפֹּר) and Bemidbar 24:3 (בְּנוֹ בְעֹר)
• לְמַעְיְנוֹ מָיִם – Tehillim 114:8
• Disputed Cases:
• וְכִפֶּר אַדְמָתוֹ עַמּוֹ (Devarim 32:43)
• וְחׇלְיוֹ וָקָצֶף (Kohelet 5:16) – See Rashi and Ralbag. Cf. Hoil Moshe that it is the opening "ו" of "וָקָצֶף" that is extraneous.

Extra Middle Yud

Certain words appear to have an extra "yud" in the middle. For example, Devarim 32:37 reads "צוּר חָסָיוּ בוֹ" when one would have expected "חסו בו".

Explaining the phenomenon

Normally when a ל"ה verb (a verb which has a "ה" in the third letter of the root) is conjugated, it loses the "ה". For example, the third person plural of the root "בכה", is "בכו", not "בכהו". Sometimes, though, the missing "ה" is replaced by a "י". [See Shadal on Shemot 15, and Ibn Ezra on Yeshayahu 41:5]

Examples

• "תְּהֹמֹת יְכַסְיֻמוּ" (Shemot 15:5)
• "וּבְקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ יִרְבְּיֻן" (Devarim 8:13)
• "צוּר חָסָיוּ בוֹ" (Devarim 32:37)
• " יֶחֱרָדוּ קָרְבוּ וַיֶּאֱתָיוּן" Yeshayahu 41:5
• "יִרְוְיֻן מִדֶּשֶׁן בֵּיתֶךָ" (Tehillim 36:9)
• "וַאֲנִי כִּמְעַט [נָטָיוּ] (נטוי) רַגְלָי" (Tehillim 73:2) -
• "אֶזְכְּרָה אֱלֹהִים וְאֶהֱמָיָה" (Tehillim 77:4)
• "יִשְׁלָיוּ אֹהֲבָיִךְ" (Tehillim 122:6)

Extra Opening Lamed

Normally when a word opens with a lamed, the letter functions as a preposition, meaning "to" or "of".  However there are many places in Tanakh where this initial lamed does not seem to play any grammatical role at all. Commentators often suggest that it might simply be superfluous, this being the "way of the text". In other cases, they suggest that it might be for emphasis, have aesthetic value, stand in for another preposition or the direct object marker "את",‎⁴ or have a specific function relevant to the case at hand.  Examples follow, with disputed cases discussed:

Examples

• Shemot 9:18 (למן) – This form comes up another 10 times.⁵ See Ibn Ezra that the lamed is either simply superfluous or present to beautify the text. R. D"Z Hoffmann on Devarim 4:32 suggests that here it serves for emphasis.
• Shemot 14:28 (לְכֹל חֵיל פַּרְעֹה) - Compare Rashi who suggests the letter is superfluous with Ramban who translates this as "of all Paroh's chariots".  See also Shadal that here the lamed means "that is".
• Shemot 21:2 (יֵצֵא לַחׇפְשִׁי) – It is debated whether the word "לַחׇפְשִׁי" is an adjective with an extraneous "ל" in the beginning (compare the "ל" of "לְאַבְשָׁלוֹם" in Divrei HaYamim I 3:2) or a noun ("to freedom") with a superfluous "י" at the end, similar to "הַיֹּשְׁבִי" of Tehillim 123:1 (Ibn Ezra).
• Shemot 27:3, 19 (לְכׇל כֵּלָיו, לְכֹל כְּלֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן) – Ibn Ezra and R. Avraham b. HaRambam claim that the lamed is superfluous, and Hoil Moshe suggests that it might simply serve for emphasis. R. Avraham b. HaRambam, in contrast, thinks it is necessary.⁶ See also Shadal that here the preposition means "in summary".
• Vayikra 19:18 (וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ) – According to some the lamed is extraneous or stands in place of the direct object marker while according to others it is significant.  R"Y Bekhor Shor, for example, suggests implies that it teaches not that one must love one's neighbor as one's self but that one must act towards him as you would towards yourself.  See also Ibn Ezra and Ramban.
• Bemidbar 11:8 (לְשַׁד הַשָּׁמֶן) – Contrast Sifre and Rashi.
• Devarim 24:5 (וְלֹא יַעֲבֹר עָלָיו לְכׇל דָּבָר) - Contrast Ibn Ezra with Rashi and Ramban.
• Other examples – Yehoshua 12:18 (מֶלֶךְ לַשָּׁרוֹן אֶחָד),⁷ Shemuel I 2:29 (כׇּל מִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעַמִּי),⁸ Shemuel II 3:30 ( לאבנר),⁹  Melakhim II 23:10 (לְבִלְתִּי לְהַעֲבִיר אִישׁ אֶת בְּנוֹ וְאֶת בִּתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ),¹⁰ Yeshayahu 63:2 (מַדּוּעַ אָדֹם לִלְבוּשֶׁךָ),¹¹ Yirmeyahu 30:12 (אָנוּשׁ לְשִׁבְרֵךְ),¹² Malakhi 3:7 (לְמִימֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם),¹³ Tehillim 12:5 (לִלְשֹׁנֵנוּ נַגְבִּיר),¹⁴ Divrei HaYamim I 3:2 (הַשְּׁלִשִׁי לְאַבְשָׁלוֹם),‎¹⁵ Divrei HaYamim II 3:11 (כְּנַף הָאֶחָד לְאַמּוֹת חָמֵשׁ)¹⁶

Extraneous Aleph

Several commentators note that in many words there seems to be an extraneous aleph, which is unconnected to the root.  If one is aware of the phenomenon, the root is more easily discernible.

Examples

• Extraneous initial aleph in nouns¹⁷ –   אצבע (Shemot 8:15), אבעבועות (Shemot 9:9), אגרוף (Shemot 21:18), אבניים (Shemot 1:16),¹⁸ אשמורת (shemot 14:24), אזכרה (Vayikra 2:2), אתרים (Bemidbar 21:1), ארגב (Devarim 3:4), אזן (Devarim 23:14), אצעדה (Shemuel II 1:10), אזרוע (Yirmeyahu 32:21), אתמול (Tehillim 90:4),

Paragogic Nun

In many places in Tanakh, a seemingly superfluous nun is added at the end of certain verb forms, most commonly at the end of the second and third person imperfect (future) plurals, as in the word "יִשְׁמְעוּן" (Shemot 4:9).  More rarely, one sees it also in the second person, feminine singular, as in "תִּדְבָּקִין" (Rut 2:8, 21) or in the third person perfect (past) plural, as in "יָדְעוּן" (Devarim 8:3) or צָקוּן (Yeshayahu 26:16). This is known by grammarians as a "paragogic nun"¹⁹ and is not generally thought to affect the meaning of the verb. 

Explaining the phenomenon

• Medieval grammarians note the phenomenon (see Radak Shofetim 11:18 and Hoshea 5:15 or Ibn Ezra Shemot 2:17) without much explanation.
• According to some modern scholars²⁰ the extra nun reflects an archaic verbal suffix, noting that one sees the same ending in cognate languages such as Aramaic, Arabic and Ugaritic as well.  It might be used for literary reasons, either when a more poetic form is desired or when a more emphatic form is warranted. As such, it is often found in words which are written at the end of clauses or verses (i.e. at the principle pauses of the verse), where the previous vowel might also be lengthened.  See, for example the word "תִּשְׁמָעוּן" in Devarim 18:15. 

Examples

Here are some of many examples from throughout Tanakh. The phenomenon is more prevalent in certain books than others (with 56 in Devarim but none in Vayikra, 36 in Yeshayahu, 23 in Iyyov and 15 in Tehillim 104 alone!).²¹  In addition it is never found after the prohibitive "אל" and is rarely found in a word with a vav conversive (ו"ו ההיפוך).

• Bereshit 3:3 (פֶּן תְּמֻתוּן), Bereshit 44:23 (תֹסִפוּן), Shemot 3:21 (תֵלֵכוּן), Shemot 4:9 (וְלֹא יִשְׁמְעוּן), Shemot 9:28 (תֹסִפוּן), Shemot 11:7 (תֵּדְעוּן), Shemot 15:14 (יִרְגָּזוּן), Bemidbar 16:28 (תֵּדְעוּן), Devarim 1:17 (תִּשְׁמָעוּן... תַּקְרִבוּן), Devarim 5:29 (תִּחְיוּן...תִּירָשׁוּן), Devarim 6:17 (תִּשְׁמְרוּן), Devarim 7:12 (תִּשְׁמְעוּן), Devarim 8:1 (תִּשְׁמְרוּן... תִּחְיוּן), Devarim 11:22 (תִּשְׁמְרוּן), Devarim 12:1 (תִּשְׁמְרוּן), Devarim 17:16 (תֹסִפוּן), Devarim 18:15 (תִּשְׁמָעוּן), Yehoshua 3:10 (תֵּדְעוּן), Yehoshua 4:6 (יִשְׁאָלוּן) Shemuel I 2:22 (יַעֲשׂוּן... יִשְׁכְּבוּן), Iyyov 19:29 (תֵּדְעוּן), Tehillim 104:7, 9-10, 22, 26-30 (many examples)

Lengthened Imperative / Paragogic Heh

In many verses in Tanakh one finds a slightly elongated form of the imperative (command), containing an extra heh (known as a paragogic heh).  For example, in Bemidbar 10:35, Moshe says: "קוּמָה יְ־הֹוָה וְיָפֻצוּ אֹיְבֶיךָ", using "קוּמָה" rather than the expected "קום".

Explaining the Phenomenon

• Traditional commentators note the phenomenon but without much explanation. See, for example, Ibn Ezra Bereshit 25:31, 30:28 and Bemidbar 11:16, where he discusses grammatical details and the vocalization of the form, but without mentioning its meaning. Ibn Janach²² mentions it in passing, viewing it as a marker of emphasis.
• Modern scholars²³ raise several possible explanations:  
• Emphasis – As mentioned, this possibility is raised already by Ibn Janach,²⁴ and might parallel the similar Arabic form.²⁵
• Euphony – The form is used for stylistic and aesthetic reasons, when it sounds more pleasing to the ear.²⁶ This, though, does not adequately explain the form's distribution, for it is not found only in poetic passages, but in mundane speech as well.
• Honorific – The ending is added as a polite or respectful form of address, often used when Hashem, father, prophet or priest are being spoken to.²⁷ For example it prefaces "Hashem" in the following:  הוֹשִׁיעָה י״י, שִׁמְעָה י״י,  שׁוּבָה י״י, הַאֲזִינָה אֱלֹהִים
• Speaker-oriented – The lengthened imperative is used when the action of the verb is directed at (or for the benefit of) the speaker.²⁸ Thus, it will often be followed by words like "לי, אלי" and the like  (הַגִּישָׁה נָּא לִי, בֹּאָה אִתִּי, תְּנָה לִּי, הַצִּילָה נַפְשִׁי, תְּנָה בְיָדִי). 

Examples

There are close to 300 examples, with just a handful listed below. For a full listing use the "grammatical concordance".²⁹ The distribution of the two forms of the imperative is not consistent. Though many words are found more often in the short imperative form, certain words are more frequently written in the long form (for example, תנה appears 24 times, while תן appears only 14 times). There are even some words which appear only in the lengthy from (השבעה, עורה, חושה, השקיבה). 

• Bereshit 15:9 (קְחָה לִי עֶגְלָה מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת), Bereshit 25:31 (מִכְרָה כַיּוֹם אֶת בְּכֹרָתְךָ לִי), Bereshit 27:7 (הָבִיאָה לִּי צַיִד), Bereshit 39:12 (שִׁכְבָה עִמִּי), Shemot 3:10 (לְכָה וְאֶשְׁלָחֲךָ), Bemidbar 10:35 (קוּמָה י״י), Bemidbar 11:16 (אֶסְפָה לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ), Devarim 26:15 (הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קׇדְשְׁךָ), Shofetim 4:18 (סוּרָה אֵלַי), Shofetim 16:6 (הַגִּידָה נָּא לִי), Shemuel I 8:5 (שִׂימָה לָּנוּ מֶלֶךְ), 

Extraneous Definite Article

The phenomenon

• When words in a construct chain (סמיכות)³⁰ are definite (marked by a "the", a ה' הידיעה), normally only the second noun of the word pair (the סומך) gets the definite article, e.g. "‏סֵפֶר הַמִּקְנָה".‎³¹  However, sometimes in Tanakh one finds what appears to be an extraneous definite article also on the first word of the pair (the נסמך), as, for example, in the phrase:."הַסֵּפֶר הַמִּקְנָה".
• In such cases, sometimes this initial noun appears in its absolute (usual) form,³²  (e.g."הַנְּבוּאָה עֹדֵד הַנָּבִיא"),³³ while elsewhere it appears in the construct state, with accompanying changes in spelling and vocalization (e.g. "הַמִּזְבַּח הַנְּחֹשֶׁת").³⁴ Often, the construct and absolute states of a noun look identical so one cannot determine which form the initial word is taking.

Explanations of the phenomenon

• A missing "נסמך" – Ibn Ezra³⁵ suggests that in these exceptional cases, the first noun of the apparent word pair is really not part of the construct chain at all but rather stands on its own.³⁶ The actual first noun of the word pair (the נסמך) is missing and must be supplied by the reader.³⁷  Thus "הָעָם הַמִּלְחָמָה" (Yehoshua 8:11) should be read as if written, "הָעָם, עַם הַמִּלְחָמָה" and "וְהַנְּבוּאָה עֹדֵד הַנָּבִיא" (Divrei HaYamim II 15:8) is equivalent to: "וְהַנְּבוּאָה, נְבוּאַת עֹדֵד הַנָּבִיא".  This explanation works well for cases where the initial noun is found in its absolute form, but would not explain cases where it is in the construct state.³⁸
• Doubled for emphasis – Radak offers a second explanation of the phenomenon in his Sefer Mikhlol (p.43), suggesting that both nouns of such word pairs are indeed part of the construct chain, and the doubling of the definite article on the first word (the נסמך)  is simply for emphasis.³⁹  According to this explanation one would expect the initial noun to always be found in the construct state, making cases where it is absolute somewhat difficult.  This leads Radak to suggest that in the latter cases, perhaps one should explain that the "נסמך" is missing, as above.⁴⁰
• Local explanations – There are several cases where commentators give local alternative explanations of the anomalous form.⁴¹

Examples of the Phenomenon

• Cases where the initial noun is in the absolute state:
• הָאָרֶץ כְּנָעַן (Bemidbar 34:2)
• הַמְלֵאָה הַזֶּרַע (Devarim 22:9) – According to the cantillation marks, Onkelos and others, these words are in the construct state, despite the unusual form. Others suggest that the word "המלאה" stands alone.  See R. D"Z Hoffmann for discussion.
• הָאָרוֹן הַבְּרִית (Yehoshua 3:14) – Compare Radak who writes, "חסר, ופירושו: הארון ארון הברית" with Malbim who suggests that the phrase means "the ark [which is itself] the covenant".
• הָעָם הַמִּלְחָמָה (Yehoshua 8:11)
• הַבָּקָר הַנְּחֹשֶׁת (Melakhim II 16:17)
• הַיַּיִן הַחֵמָה הַזֹּאת (Yirmeyahu 25:15)
• הָעָם הָאָרֶץ (Yechezkel 45:16)
• הַנָּהָר פְּרָת (Divrei HaYamim I 5:9)
• וְהַנְּבוּאָה עֹדֵד הַנָּבִיא (Divrei HaYamim II 15:8)
• Cases where the initial noun is in the construct state:
• אֶת הַיְתַד הָאֶרֶג (Shofetim 16:14)
• הַתּוֹעֲבֹת הַגּוֹיִם (Melakhim I 14:24)
• הַמִּזְבַּח הַנְּחֹשֶׁת (Melakhim II 16:14)
•  הַמִּסְגְּרוֹת הַמְּכוֹנֹת (Melakhim II 16:17)
• הַמִּזְבַּח בֵּית אֵל (Melakhim II 23:17)
• כׇּל הַמַּמְלְכוֹת הָאָרֶץ (Yirmeyahu 25:26) – See Radak and Malbim.
• הַלִּשְׁכוֹת הַקֹּדֶשׁ (Yechezkel 46:19)
• הַלִּשְׁכוֹת בֵּית יְ־⁠הֹוָה (Ezra 8:29)
• הָאֹצְרוֹת בֵּית הָאֱלֹהִים (DIvrei HaYamim I 9:26)
• Cases where the absolute and construct states of the initial noun are identical:
• וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע (Bereshit 3:9)⁴²
• הָאֵל בֵּית אֵל (Bereshit 31:13)
• שְׁתֵּי הָעֲבֹתֹת הַזָּהָב (Shemot 39:17)
• וַחֲצִי הַשֵּׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה (Yehoshua 13:7)
• הָאֶבֶן הָעֵזֶר (Shemuel I 4:1)
• הַנַּחַל הַגָּד (Shemuel II 24:5)
• הַקֶּבֶר אִישׁ הָאֱ־לֹהִים (Melakhim II 23:17)
• הַמֶּלֶךְ בָּבֶל (Melakhim II 25:11)
• הַמֶּלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר (Yeshayahu 36:8)
• הַסֵּפֶר הַמִּקְנָה (Yirmeyahu 32:12)
• הַשַּׁעַר [הָאִיתוֹן] (Yechezkel 40:15)
• הַשַּׁעַר הַדָּרוֹם (Yechezkel 40:28)
• הָאֶבֶן הַבְּדִיל (Zekharyah 4:10)
• הַלַּעַג הַשַּׁאֲנַנִּים (Tehillim 123:4) – Radak suggests that the phrase is either missing the נסמך and is short for "הַלַּעַג, לעג הַשַּׁאֲנַנִּים", or that the "ה" in the word "הַשַּׁאֲנַנִּים" stands in for a "ל", so that the phrase reads "the mockery [that we were] to the smug."
• הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים (Esther 6:1)

Extraneous Definite Article II

Normally proper names do not get a definite article, as they are definite by definition. There are, however, several places in Tanakh where they nonetheless do take such an article.

• Examples: קרית הארבע (Bereshit 35:27; see Radak) בַּמַּסָּה (Devarim 6:16), בַּקַּרְקֹר (Shofetim 8:10), הארונה (Shemuel II 24:!6), ארץ המגוג (Yechezkel 38:2). Some names appear to take a definite article as their default: , הַמֹּלֶךְ, השטים, הלבנון
• Disputed cases: "בַּסֻּכֹּת" in Vayikra 23:42 (see Radak on Shemuel i 15:4); "בַּטְּלָאִים" in Shemuel I 15:4 (contrast Rashi and Radak)
• Explanations: See R. Y"S Reggio on Devarim 6:16 that the phenomenon might be related to pausal forms.

Missing Definite Article

• Examples: Bereshit 19:33 (בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא), Bereshit 32:23 (בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא) Bemidbar 28:4 (אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ אֶחָד), Shemuel I 13:17 (הָרֹאשׁ אֶחָד), Shemuel II 6:3 (הָעֲגָלָה חֲדָשָׁה), Melakhim I 16:18 ( בֵּית מֶלֶךְ), 

Superfluous Conjunctive Vav

At times in Tanakh what seems to be a conjunctive "ו" (meaning: "and") appears before a word which does not seem to need a conjunction. For example, at times a word heads a list of nouns and nonetheless opens with a "ו" . Elsewhere, it is the middle of a thought where the addition of the word "and" disrupts the flow.

Explanations

• Ibn Ezra notes that there is a similar phenomenon in Arabic, פ״ה רפה בלשון ישמעאל
• In many cases, exegetes question whether the vav really is superfluous, giving local explanations for its presence, as seen below.

Examples

In many of the following examples, while some suggest that the superfluous vav is simply a matter of style and "דרך נמקרא", others suggest that the vav is actually a necessary part of the word/sentence:

• Bereshit 36:24 (וְאֵלֶּה בְנֵי צִבְעוֹן וְאַיָּה וַעֲנָה) – As Ayah is the first of the listed sons of Zivon, the conjunction "ו" before it seems unnecessary.  See Rashi that the "ו" is indeed superfluous, pointing to the parallel genealogy list in Divrei HaYamim I 1:40, where the name is written "איה". Cf. Rashbam who suggests that the son's name was actually "Ve'ayah", pointing to other names in Tanakh which similarly begin with a "ו", such as Vashti in the Scroll of Esther.
• Vayikra 7:16 (וּמִמׇּחֳרָת וְהַנּוֹתָר מִמֶּנּוּ יֵאָכֵל) – See Rashi and Ibn Ezra that the "ו" of "וְהַנּוֹתָר" here is superfluous, with the phrase meaning "and on the next day, whatever remains shall be eaten".  Cf. Ramban that the "ו" is meaningful, with the "and" serving to emphasize the word "נותר", that it is only if something remains that it should be eaten on the morrow.  See also Hoil Moshe who raises the possibility that the "ו" should really be attached to the previous word, with the phrase reading, "וּמִמׇּחֳרָתו הַנּוֹתָר"
• Bemidbar 16:1 (וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח בֶּן יִצְהָר בֶּן קְהָת בֶּן לֵוִי וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם) – See Chizkuni that the "ו" of "ודתן" is extraneous, and that Datan and Aviram are the object of the verb "ויקח".  Alternatively, one might suggest that Datan and Aviram, too, are subjects of the verb.⁴³
• Tehillim 76:7 ("מִגַּעֲרָתְךָ אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב נִרְדָּם וְרֶכֶב וָסוּס") – There seems to be no reason to include the word "and" before "רֶכֶב" as it is the first subject of the list, leading Rashi to suggest that it is redundant.  Cf. Ibn Ezra that the word "נִרְדָּם" refers back to the subject of the previous sentence as well, so that the verse should be understood as if written "The men of valor [mentioned in the previous verse] and the chariots and horses fell asleep".  Radak similarly introduces an assumed subject: "the king, and chariot and horses".
• וְקֹ֥דֶשׁ וְצָבָ֖א (Daniel 8:13) – See Rashi that the "ו" of "וְקֹ֥דֶשׁ" is superfluous.

Missing Conjunctive Vav

There are several verses in Tanakh where commentators suggest that a word is missing a conjunctive vav (meaning "and").  In several of these cases, two nouns are found next to each other and commentators debate whether they are in the construct state⁴⁴ or if they are a list of nouns which is simply missing the conjunctiion.

• Vayikra 11:36  (בור מקוה מים) – See Ibn Ezra that this is either in the construct state (a pit of pooled waters) or it is missing the conjunction, "a pit and a pool of water"
• Vayikra 21:4 (חללה זונה) – Compare Ibn Ezra who suggests that the conjunction is missing with R. D"Z Hoffman who suggests that the word "זונה" modifies "‏‎‏חללה".‎⁴⁵ 
• Bemidbar 31:26 (מַלְקוֹחַ הַשְּׁבִי) – See Ibn Ezra that there is a missing vav and this should be read as "the booty and the captives". Alternatively, the phrase means: "the booty of the captives" / "the captured booty".
• Devarim 12:2 (אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת כׇּל הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹרְשִׁים אֹתָם אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם) –Ibn Janach suggests that the verse be read as if written "ואת אלהיהם" (and their gods), understanding that it mandates that one destroy both the sites of worship and the idols themselves. Alternatively, these words are the object of the word "served"; Hashem is commanding that one destroy all the cultic sites in which the nations served foreign gods (Rashbam).
• Devarim 14:4 (שׁוֹר שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים) – See Ibn Ezra that the second word of the list should be read as if written "ושה כבשים".
• Devarim 16:2 (וְזָבַחְתָּ פֶּסַח לַי־הֹוָה אֱ־לֹהֶיךָ צֹאן וּבָקָר) – According to Shemot 12, the Pesach is brought only from sheep or goats, not cattle. This leads Ramban to read our verse as if written: "וזבחת פסח... וצאן ובקר" (You shall sacrifice a Pesach, [along with] sheep and cattle).⁴⁶  Shadal, in contrast, raises the possibility that the directive to bring from one's flock specifically was only relevant during the original Pesach in Egypt when haste was a factor; our verse, however, permits future generations to bring also from cattle.  The Sages, however, enacted that even the future people bring from sheep or goats in commemoration of the first Pesach.
• Devarim 17:9⁴⁷(הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם) – According to R. Saadia, this should read as if written with a conjunction: "the preists and the Levites". Cf. Rashi and others that it instead means "the Levitical priests" (i.e. the priests of the tribe of Levi).
• Yehoshua 1:14 ("נְשֵׁיכֶם טַפְּכֶם וּמִקְנֵיכֶם") – See Radak who notes that there is no vav before "טפכם".
• Chavakkuk 3:11 ("שֶׁמֶשׁ יָרֵחַ עָמַד") – Many commentators read this as if written, "the sun and the moon".
• Tehillim 32:5 (עֲוֺן חַטָּאתִי) – Compare R. Saadia who suggests that this be read as "my iniquity and my sin", with Radak who suggests that this is a construct chain, meaning "the iniquity of my sin", with the doubling serving for emphasis.
• Other examples – Bereshit 27:29 (כֵלֶיךָ תֶּלְיְךָ וְקַשְׁתֶּךָ)

Missing Preposition

There are several places in Tanakh where the prepositional prefixes (בכל"מ) are missing, with them being simply assumed by the reader. See:

• Rashi Bereshit 35:7, Ibn Ezra Bereshit 38:11, Rashi Bereshit 45:16, R. D"Z Hoffmann Bereshit 24:23, Shemot 20:10, Rashi Devarim 22:21, Melakhim II 18:15,⁴⁸Shemuel II 9:4,⁴⁹ Eikhah 1:7,⁵⁰Eikhah 2:21.

Extra Letters as Intensifiers

There are several words in Tanakh which appear only once, but are very similar to other more common words, with just an extra letter (often a "מ") prefaced to the noun. Hoil Moshe suggests that in such cases, the extra letter serves to express intensity. Others claim that these are simply variations of the common word, with no difference in meaning.

• "אֲנִי מַנְגִּינָתָם"  (Eikhah 3:63) – This word appears only once in Tanakh, but is similar to the more common "נְגִינָה", leading Ibn Ezra to suggest that it is simply a variation of that word. Hoil Moshe posits that the extra "מ" serves as an intensifier (in this case, perhaps indicating the magnitude of the mockery in the song).⁵¹
• " תִּתֵּן לָהֶם מְגִנַּת לֵב" (Eikhah 3:65) – The word "מגינה" appears only here, leading commentators to debate its meaning. Hoil Moshe suggests that it relates to the noun "יגון", grief or sorrow, here written with an extra "מ" for emphasis, denoting "heart-break".⁵²
• "תַּאֲלָתְךָ" (Eikhah 3:65) – This word is a hapax legomenon, but Hoil Moshe suggests that it is simply a variation of the similar noun "אָלָה" (curse), with an extraneous "ת" for emphasis, denoting a particularly harsh curse.⁵³  
• "מִנְּזָרַיִךְ כָּאַרְבֶּה" (Nachum 3:17) – See Hoil Moshe that this is a variation of the word "נזיר", a crowned one, and explains:‎‎‏"‏תוספת המ״ם להוראת הגדלה". ‏‏‎⁵⁴
• "מִשְׁבַּתֶּהָ" (Eikhah 1:7)

¹ ולדעתי אינם יתירים לגמרי, כי היו"ד יורה בכל אלה להיותם שמות תוארים, ולהורות שהענינים הם קבועים וקיימים ונתחזקי' במתואר בו, ואם יאמר המגביה לשבת, המשפיל לראות, היה משמעותו גם על שעה חדא שבזמן המדובר הוא יושב גבוה ומשפיל לראות. אמנם ע"י תוספת היו"ד ידענו שישיבתו בגובה וראייתו בשפלים הוא תאר תמידי אליו ית', וכן נאדרי בכח יורה היו"ד על אדונתו הקבוע בו תמידי.

² Regarding the second half of this image, "וְלַשֹּׂרֵקָה בְּנִי אֲתֹנוֹ" which also appears to have an extra "h", see below, under the list of disputed  cases.

³ See also Shadal that perhaps the word should read as if written "בְנֵי" in plural.

⁴ See Radak Divrei HaYamim I 3:2, and elsewhere.

⁵ See Devarim 4:32, Devarim 9:7, Shemuel II 19:25, Yirmeyahu 7:7, 7:25, 25:5, 32:31, Chaggai 2:18, Divrei HaYamim I 5:9, Divrei HaYamim  II 15:13.

⁶ Regarding verse 3 he cites his grandfather that it is necessary to dismabiguate lest one think there were other vessels; th everse thus emphaisezs that "for all its vessels, [just mentioned]".  Regarding verse 19, too, hw keeps the literal reading of "for all", here suggesting that the opening words of the verse conclude the discussion of the courtyard; the courtyard described above is "for all the vessels of the Tabernacle".

⁷ See Hoil Moshe.

⁸ See Radak and Hoil Moshe who say that the lamed is unnecessary. Rashi, in contrast, suggests that the word "לעמי" relates to the earlier part of the verse, with Hashem telling Eli, "you have shown my people that you have honored your sons more than me". [This is not a particularly smooth reading and requires not only reordering the verse but also adding in assumed words.]

⁹ See Radak that here the "ל" stands in place of the direct object marker "את".

¹⁰ See R. Tanchum HaYerushalmi.

¹¹ See Ibn Ezra and Radak.

¹² See Shadal and Radak.

¹³ See Ibn Ezra and Radak.

¹⁴ Contrast  Meiri who views the lamed as superfluous with Rashi who suggests that here it means "with"/"by mean of".  Hoil Moshe notes this usage in the phrase "לפ חרב".  Cf. Ibn Ezra and Radak who suggest that it means "because of". They note that elsewhere too a lamed can mean "about", as in Bereshit 20:13 and Shofetim 9:54.

¹⁵ See Radak who discusses the phenomenon at length here, noting that at times an opening lamed might serve a function similar to the direct object marker "‎‏את". See also Malbim who, in a homiletic fashion, notes that in this specific case the lamed might come to intentionally distort Avshalom's name. As the name itself means "father of peace" yet Avshalom was rebellious, the verse renders his name "לא אב שלום" - he is not a father of peace.

¹⁶ See Radak.

¹⁷ Ibn Ezra notes many of the following examples.

¹⁸ See one opinion in Ibn Ezra.

¹⁹ The word paragoge means "the addition of a sound to the end of a word".

²⁰ See Joüon–Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome, 1996): 136-137, and Gesenius Hebrew Grammar (The Imperfect and its Inflexion).

²¹ See Joüon–Muraoka above.  He notes that the form is less common in later books such Esther, Daniel and Divrei HaYamim (which is logical if it is preserving a more archaic form).

²² Sefer HaRikmah, ed. M.Wilenski (Jerusalem, 1964): 96.

²³ See discussion in Joüon–Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome, 1996): 143), and more recently, S. Fassberg, "The Lengthened Imperative (קטלה) in Biblical Hebrew".  The list of possibilities that follows is taken from their works.

²⁴ undefined

²⁵ P. Joüon (ibid) suggests that this might have been the original function of the form, but over time it was used even when there was no need for emphasis, becoming more of a stylistic feature.

²⁶ See P. Joüon (ibid).

²⁷ See M. Lambert, Traité de Grammaire hébraïque (Paris, 1946): 255-257, cited by P. Joüon (ibid. See also S. Kaufman, "An Emphatic Plea for Please", who suggests that this form (like the word נא) is a way to express "please".

²⁸ This is the view of Fassberg (ibid) himself.

²⁹ Choose "grammatical" concordance from the drop-down menu. Then, under "inflection", choose "verb" as the part of speech. Check the "imperative" and "lengthened" boxes, and place "search".

³⁰ This is a form used to show possession.  In English, one does this by use of an apostrophe followed by "s" (e.g. the country's queen) or by inserting the word "of" between two nouns (e.g. the queen of the country).  In Hebrew, one simply forms a noun pair (or chain), juxtaposing two nouns (or more) to show that they are in a relationship. For example, "קול נביא" means "voice of a prophet" and "מלך הארץ" means "the king of the land". The first noun of the pair (the נסמך) is said to be in the construct state and often takes a unique morphological form, with changes in spelling or vocalization, while the second noun (the סומך) maintains its usual form and is said to be in the absolute sate.  Thus, for example, "the queen (מַלְכָּה) of the land (הָאָרֶץ)" would be: "מַלְכַּת הָאָרֶץ" (with the "kamatz-heh" of the original noun "מַלְכָּה" being replaced with a "patach-taf"). So, too, the "people (אֲנָשִׁים) of the land (הָאָרֶץ)" becomes: "אַנְשֵׁי הָאָרֶץ", with the final "mem" of "אֲנָשִׁים" being dropped.

³¹ This is in contrast to English where both words take a definite article.  Thus, while in English one says: "the kings of the land", in Hebrew one says "מַלְכֵי הָאָרֶץ" (and not: "הַמַלְכֵי הָאָרֶץ").  If the second word is a proper name, by definition it is definite and no definite article is necessary at all. Thus "the queen of Sheba" is rendered: "מַלְכַּת שְׁבָא"

³² It will, though, be modified as needed due to the definite article, taking a dagesh in the first letter of the noun etc.

³³ It reads "הַנְּבוּאָה" in the absolute state, and not "הַנְּבוּאַת" in the construct state.

³⁴ It reads "הַמִּזְבַּח" in the construct state, rather than "הַמִּזְבֵּחַ" in the absolute state.

³⁵ See below that although Radak also brings this explanation, he prefers an alternative explanation, and only utilizes this explanation for certain cases of the phenomenon.

³⁶ In other words, it is not the "נסמך" but a regular noun.

³⁷ One does this by using the construct state of the immediately preceding noun. In the language of Ibn Ezra, the initial word "pulls itself and another with it" (המלה מושכת עצמה ואחרת עמה), i.e. the initial word is meant to be applied twice in the sentence, once for itself and once as part of the construct chain.

³⁸ According to Ibn Ezra, the initial noun is not part of the construct chain so it should take the form of a regular noun.

³⁹ He does not explain why in each case of the phenomenon there is a need for extra emphasis.

⁴⁰ Thus, in his commentary on Tanakh, he utilizes both explanations depending on the case. In his Sefer HaMikhlol, however, Radak also raises the possibility that even cases where the initial noun is found in its absolute state, it is still part of the construct chain, taking an unexpected form only because once the definite article was added, the word adapted to fit the form found with a definite article (and thus lost the form expected of the construct state).

⁴¹ See below for examples.

⁴² See Ibn Ezra that this is equivalent to "וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת, דַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע"

⁴³ One might argue that, if so, the verb should have been rendered in the plural, "ויקחו" (they took).  However, in Tanakh usually when there are multiple people  doing a single action, the verb will match the number and gender of the subject closest to the verb. [See Nonconformity Between Subject and Verb for many examples.] 

⁴⁴ See discussion of the construct state above, in the section about extraneous definite articles.

⁴⁵ This is meant to hint that some women get "חלל" status not from birth but because they slept with someone forbidden to them.

⁴⁶ Cf. Sifre who comes to a similar conclusion regarding the meaning of the verse, but through a different rereading of the verse. It suggests that the connotation is "you shall sacrifice the Pesach from the sheep [and the Chagigah] from the cattle."

⁴⁷ The pharse appears many times in Tanakh. See also Devarim 18:1, 24:8, 27:9, Yehoshua 3:3, 8:33, Yirmeyahu 33:18 etc.

⁴⁸ See Ibn Ezra on Bereshit 38:11 who notes this case.

⁴⁹ See Rashi Bereshit 35:7 who notes this example.

⁵⁰ See Rashi and R"Y Kara that the phrase " זָכְרָה יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם יְמֵי עׇנְיָהּ וּמְרוּדֶיהָ" should be read as if written "ביְמֵי עׇנְיָהּ".

⁵¹ Cf. Lekach Tov who suggests that the word should be understood as if written: "מרגינתם", their griping or murmuring, noting that often a "ר" and "נ" might interchange, as, for example, in the varying forms of the name נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר / נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר. 

⁵² Others suggest that the noun relates to the root "גנן", normally understood as "defend" but perhaps more literally meaning: "to cover". If so, "מְגִנַּת לֵב" refers to a "covering of the heart", perhaps a sickness (R"Y Kimchi, Ibn Kaspi), or a "secret" (Ibn Ezra, explaining that the poet requests that Hashem prevent the foes from recognizing the curse set upon them). See also Lekach Tov who translates: "insanity", pointing to a Greek equivalent.

⁵³ Eikhah Rabbah and Ibn Ezra agree that it is a variation of the more common word, but do not explain the reason for the extraneous letter, , and see "תַּאֲנָתָהּ" in Yirmeyahu 2:24 for another example of an extraneous letter). Alternatively, the word might mean: "hardship", with "תַּאֲלָה" being a variation of "תְּלָאָה", travail (R"Y Kara), or: "foolishness", viewing the word as related to the root "יאל", to be foolish (Rashi).

⁵⁴ Here, he notes that this is true of all nouns of this grammatical pattern: "והשם מִנְזָר על משקל מִבְחָר מִגְדָל מִשְקָל מִבְצָר מִקְדָש ודומיהם שבכולם תוספת המ״ם להוראת הגדלה".