Difference between revisions of "Grammar:Number/0"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 11: Line 11:
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li><multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary1-14" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra </a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitLexicalCommentary1-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit Lexical Commentary 1:14</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary1-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 1:14</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>explains that this is "the way of the text" and that the lack of conformity might stem from the word's prevalence.<fn>He writes: "בעבור שידברו במלה הזאת הרבה".</fn> <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit1-14" data-aht="source">Shada</a><a href="ShadalBereshit1-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit 1:14</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>l compares it to the Italian "impersonale" construction, often used to express a non specific subject ("one", "they" etc) which similarly does not always conform to number.</li>
 
<li><multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary1-14" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra </a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitLexicalCommentary1-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit Lexical Commentary 1:14</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary1-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 1:14</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>explains that this is "the way of the text" and that the lack of conformity might stem from the word's prevalence.<fn>He writes: "בעבור שידברו במלה הזאת הרבה".</fn> <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit1-14" data-aht="source">Shada</a><a href="ShadalBereshit1-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit 1:14</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>l compares it to the Italian "impersonale" construction, often used to express a non specific subject ("one", "they" etc) which similarly does not always conform to number.</li>
<li>Cf.&#160;<multilink><a href="RashbamBereshit1-14" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit1-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit 1:14</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> who agrees that the nonconformity is simply "the way of the text" but adds that if one nonetheless wanted to look for conformity, one might suggest that in all such cases there is an assumed subject which is implied by the text: "מעשה".&#160; Thus, such verses would read as if written: "and [an event] happened, that..."</li>
+
<li>Cf.&#160;<multilink><a href="RashbamBereshit1-14" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit1-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit 1:14</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> who agrees that the nonconformity is simply "the way of the text" but adds that if one nonetheless wanted to look for conformity, one might suggest that in all such cases there is an assumed subject which is implied by the text: "מעשה" and it is this which conforms to the verb.&#160; Thus, such verses would read as if written: "and [an event] happened, that..."</li>
 
<li>Examples include:&#160;<a href="Bereshit1-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit 1:14</a> ("יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם"),&#8206;<fn>Though the word "מְאֹרֹת" is plural, the verb "יְהִי" is singular.&#160; Compare Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and Radak who note that this is "the way of the text" with Lekach Tov who suggests that the singular form teaches that the luminaries were created from the light of the first day.</fn>&#160;&#160;<a href="Shemot17-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 17:12</a> ( וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה),<fn>See Ibn Ezra and R. D"Z Hoffmann, and compare to Rashi who adds in an assumed subject so as to create conformity: "<b>ויהי משה</b> ידיו פרושות השמים באמונה".</fn> Bemidbar 9:6 (וַיְהִי אֲנָשִׁים), Devarim 22:23 (כִּי יִהְיֶה נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה),<fn>undefined</fn></li>
 
<li>Examples include:&#160;<a href="Bereshit1-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit 1:14</a> ("יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם"),&#8206;<fn>Though the word "מְאֹרֹת" is plural, the verb "יְהִי" is singular.&#160; Compare Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and Radak who note that this is "the way of the text" with Lekach Tov who suggests that the singular form teaches that the luminaries were created from the light of the first day.</fn>&#160;&#160;<a href="Shemot17-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 17:12</a> ( וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה),<fn>See Ibn Ezra and R. D"Z Hoffmann, and compare to Rashi who adds in an assumed subject so as to create conformity: "<b>ויהי משה</b> ידיו פרושות השמים באמונה".</fn> Bemidbar 9:6 (וַיְהִי אֲנָשִׁים), Devarim 22:23 (כִּי יִהְיֶה נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה),<fn>undefined</fn></li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
<li><b>Other cases</b> – With other verbs, as well, number and verb might not match.&#160; In many of these cases, however, commentators are more hesitant to attribute this to "the way of the text" and attempt to explain away the nonconformity:</li>
 
<li><b>Other cases</b> – With other verbs, as well, number and verb might not match.&#160; In many of these cases, however, commentators are more hesitant to attribute this to "the way of the text" and attempt to explain away the nonconformity:</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li>Ambiguous subject:</li>
+
<li><b>Ambiguous subject:</b></li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li>Bereshit 4:10 (קוֹל דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים) – Though the word "קוֹל" is singular, the verb "צֹעֲקִים" is plural.<fn>See R. D"Z Hoffmann that the Samaritan version of Torah therefore emends the text to read "קול דמי אחיך צועק", producing conformity.</fn> Many commentators<fn>See Ibn Ezra, Radak, HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, Shadal, R. D" Z Hoffmann.</fn> explain that the perceived nonconformity stems from a misunderstanding, noting that really the referent of "צֹעֲקִים" is not the singular "קוֹל" but the plural "דמי אחיך".</li>
 
<li>Bereshit 4:10 (קוֹל דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים) – Though the word "קוֹל" is singular, the verb "צֹעֲקִים" is plural.<fn>See R. D"Z Hoffmann that the Samaritan version of Torah therefore emends the text to read "קול דמי אחיך צועק", producing conformity.</fn> Many commentators<fn>See Ibn Ezra, Radak, HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, Shadal, R. D" Z Hoffmann.</fn> explain that the perceived nonconformity stems from a misunderstanding, noting that really the referent of "צֹעֲקִים" is not the singular "קוֹל" but the plural "דמי אחיך".</li>
<li>Shemuel I 2:4 ("קֶשֶׁת גִּבֹּרִים חַתִּים") – Though the word "קֶשֶׁת" is singular, the word "חַתִּים" is plural.&#160; This leads Radak and Ralbag to suggest that the word "חַתִּים" modifies "גִּבֹּרִים" rather than "קֶשֶׁת" and the verse's intent is that the mighty men, with their bows, were broken. Cf. Malbim who suggests that the verb is modifying "קֶשֶׁת", but that since this is "שם המין", the name of a category, it can take a plural verb. Hoil Moshe instead suggests that the verb is in the plural form only due to its juxtaposition to the plural "גִּבֹּרִים".&#8206;<fn>He points to Tehillim 37:16, " מֵהֲמוֹן רְשָׁעִים רַבִּים", as a similar example, suggesting that "רַבִּים" modifies "הֲמוֹן" and is cast in the plural due to its juxtaposition to the word "רְשָׁעִים". Hoil Moshe also raises the possibility that in out verse "קֶשֶׁת גִּבֹּרִים" should be understood as "גבורי קשת", in which case there is conformity between verb and noun.</fn>&#160;</li>
+
<li>Shemuel I 2:4 ("קֶשֶׁת גִּבֹּרִים חַתִּים") – Though the word "קֶשֶׁת" is singular, the word "חַתִּים" is plural.&#160; This leads Radak and Ralbag to suggest that the word "חַתִּים" modifies "גִּבֹּרִים" rather than "קֶשֶׁת" and the verse's intent is that the mighty men, with their bows, were broken.&#8206;<fn>Cf. Malbim who suggests that the verb is modifying "קֶשֶׁת", but that since this is "שם המין", the name of a category, it can take a plural verb. Hoil Moshe instead suggests that the verb is in the plural form only due to its juxtaposition to the plural "גִּבֹּרִים". [He points to Tehillim 37:16, " מֵהֲמוֹן רְשָׁעִים רַבִּים", as a similar example, suggesting that "רַבִּים" modifies "הֲמוֹן" and is cast in the plural due to its juxtaposition to the word "רְשָׁעִים".] Hoil Moshe also raises the possibility that in out verse "קֶשֶׁת גִּבֹּרִים" should be understood as "גבורי קשת", in which case there is conformity between verb and noun.</fn>&#160;</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
<li>Unmentioned / Implied subject</li>
+
<li><b>Unmentioned / Implied subject</b></li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li>Shemot 1:10 ("כִּי תִקְרֶאנָה מִלְחָמָה") –&#160; Though "מִלְחָמָה" is singular "תִקְרֶאנָה" is plural. Rashbam notes that this is simply "the way of the text:.&#160; Cf. Ibn Ezra<fn>Ibn Ezra also raises the possibility that this is simply the way of the text.</fn> who raises the possibility that the verse is truncated and really means "כִּי תִקְרֶאנָה קורות מִלְחָמָה", in which case the plural "תִקְרֶאנָה" matches the plural "קורות".</li>
+
<li>Shemot 1:10 ("כִּי תִקְרֶאנָה מִלְחָמָה") –&#160; Though "מִלְחָמָה" is singular "תִקְרֶאנָה" is plural. While Rashbam notes that this is simply "the way of the text", Ibn Ezra<fn>Ibn Ezra also raises the possibility that this is simply the way of the text.</fn>&#160; raises the possibility that the verse is truncated and really means "כִּי תִקְרֶאנָה קורות מִלְחָמָה", in which case the plural "תִקְרֶאנָה" matches the plural "קורות".</li>
 
<li>Shemot 17:2 ("וַיָּרֶב הָעָם עִם מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ תְּנוּ לָנוּ מַיִם") – Though the verse implies that the nation is speaking only with Moshe, the people nonetheless address him in the plural, saying, "תְּנוּ". This leads Ibn Ezra and Radak to suggest that the nation must have been speaking to Aharon as well, even though he is not mentioned.</li>
 
<li>Shemot 17:2 ("וַיָּרֶב הָעָם עִם מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ תְּנוּ לָנוּ מַיִם") – Though the verse implies that the nation is speaking only with Moshe, the people nonetheless address him in the plural, saying, "תְּנוּ". This leads Ibn Ezra and Radak to suggest that the nation must have been speaking to Aharon as well, even though he is not mentioned.</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
<li>Each of many...</li>
+
<li><b>Each of many...</b></li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li>Tehillim 66:3 ("מַה נּוֹרָא מַעֲשֶׂיךָ") – See Rashi and Ibn Ezra that the word "" is in singular since the verse's intent is "how awesome is each of your deeds".</li>
+
<li>Tehillim 66:3 ("מַה נּוֹרָא מַעֲשֶׂיךָ") – See Rashi and Ibn Ezra that the word "נּוֹרָא" is in singular despite the plural "מַעֲשֶׂיךָ" since the verse's intent is "how awesome is <b>each of</b> your deeds".</li>
<li>Bereshit 49:22</li>
+
<li>Bereshit 49:22 (בָּנוֹת צָעֲדָה עֲלֵי שׁוּר) – See Rashi, Rashbam and Ibn Ezra, who explain the singular " צָעֲדָה" by saying that<b> each of</b> the many boughs climbed.<fn>Contrast Shadal who suffices to note that it "common" for a plural feminine noun to take a singular verbal form, noting that this is a common phenomenon in Arabic as well. He notes many other examples, including Iyyov 27:20 <br/><br/>כמים בלהות (איוב כ״ז:כ׳), ועיניו קמה (שמואל א ד׳:ט״ו) כי קמה על בבל מחשבות ה׳ (ירמיהו נ״א:כ״ט) מפי עליון לא תצא הרעות (איכה ג׳:ל״ח) וחטאותנו ענתה בנו (ישעיהו נ״ט:י״ב) מחשבות בעצה תכון (משלי כ׳:י״ח)</fn></li>
<li>Shemuel I 19:20 (וַיִּשְׁלַח שָׁאוּל מַלְאָכִים... וַיַּרְא) – Though many messengers were sent by Shaul, the verse states in singular that "he saw".&#160; radak explains that the form implies that "each of the messengers saw". Alternatively, he suggests that the verse refers to just the head messenger.</li>
+
<li>Shemuel I 19:20 (וַיִּשְׁלַח שָׁאוּל מַלְאָכִים... וַיַּרְא) – Though many messengers were sent by Shaul, the verse states in singular that "he saw".&#160; Radak explains that the form implies that "each of the messengers saw".<fn>Alternatively, he suggests that the verse refers to just the head messenger.</fn> </li>
<li>Yeshayahu 59:12</li>
+
<li>Other examples: Other verses have been explained in a similar manner. See Yeshayahu 59:12 (וְחַטֹּאותֵינוּ עָנְתָה בָּנוּ), Yirmeyahu 46:15 (מַדּוּעַ נִסְחַף אַבִּירֶיךָ), Yirmeyahu 51:29 (כִּי קָמָה עַל בָּבֶל מַחְשְׁבוֹת י"י)</li>
<li>Yirmeyahu 46:15</li>
 
<li>Yirmeyahu 51:29</li>
 
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
<li>Devarim 30:10 ("מִצְוֺתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו הַכְּתוּבָה")&#160;– See Chizkuni and R. D"Z Hoffmann.</li>
 
<li>Devarim 30:10 ("מִצְוֺתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו הַכְּתוּבָה")&#160;– See Chizkuni and R. D"Z Hoffmann.</li>

Version as of 13:23, 24 April 2022

Number

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Nonconformity Between Number and Verb

In Biblical Hebrew there is not always conformity between number and verb, with a plural subject sometimes taking a single verb form and vice versa.  Some commentators attribute this to "דרך המקרא", the way of the text,1 and do not attempt to explain the various cases, while others try to explain the nonconformity in each case.

  • "היה" – Many commentators2 note that the phenomenon is especially prevalent with regards to the root "היה" when it precedes a subject.
    • Ibn Ezra Bereshit Lexical Commentary 1:14Bereshit First Commentary 1:14About R. Avraham ibn Ezraexplains that this is "the way of the text" and that the lack of conformity might stem from the word's prevalence.3 ShadaBereshit 1:14About R. Shemuel David Luzzattol compares it to the Italian "impersonale" construction, often used to express a non specific subject ("one", "they" etc) which similarly does not always conform to number.
    • Cf. RashbamBereshit 1:14About R. Shemuel b. Meir who agrees that the nonconformity is simply "the way of the text" but adds that if one nonetheless wanted to look for conformity, one might suggest that in all such cases there is an assumed subject which is implied by the text: "מעשה" and it is this which conforms to the verb.  Thus, such verses would read as if written: "and [an event] happened, that..."
    • Examples include: Bereshit 1:14 ("יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם"),‎4  Shemot 17:12 ( וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה),5 Bemidbar 9:6 (וַיְהִי אֲנָשִׁים), Devarim 22:23 (כִּי יִהְיֶה נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה),6
  • Other cases – With other verbs, as well, number and verb might not match.  In many of these cases, however, commentators are more hesitant to attribute this to "the way of the text" and attempt to explain away the nonconformity:
    • Ambiguous subject:
      • Bereshit 4:10 (קוֹל דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים) – Though the word "קוֹל" is singular, the verb "צֹעֲקִים" is plural.7 Many commentators8 explain that the perceived nonconformity stems from a misunderstanding, noting that really the referent of "צֹעֲקִים" is not the singular "קוֹל" but the plural "דמי אחיך".
      • Shemuel I 2:4 ("קֶשֶׁת גִּבֹּרִים חַתִּים") – Though the word "קֶשֶׁת" is singular, the word "חַתִּים" is plural.  This leads Radak and Ralbag to suggest that the word "חַתִּים" modifies "גִּבֹּרִים" rather than "קֶשֶׁת" and the verse's intent is that the mighty men, with their bows, were broken.‎9 
    • Unmentioned / Implied subject
      • Shemot 1:10 ("כִּי תִקְרֶאנָה מִלְחָמָה") –  Though "מִלְחָמָה" is singular "תִקְרֶאנָה" is plural. While Rashbam notes that this is simply "the way of the text", Ibn Ezra10  raises the possibility that the verse is truncated and really means "כִּי תִקְרֶאנָה קורות מִלְחָמָה", in which case the plural "תִקְרֶאנָה" matches the plural "קורות".
      • Shemot 17:2 ("וַיָּרֶב הָעָם עִם מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ תְּנוּ לָנוּ מַיִם") – Though the verse implies that the nation is speaking only with Moshe, the people nonetheless address him in the plural, saying, "תְּנוּ". This leads Ibn Ezra and Radak to suggest that the nation must have been speaking to Aharon as well, even though he is not mentioned.
    • Each of many...
      • Tehillim 66:3 ("מַה נּוֹרָא מַעֲשֶׂיךָ") – See Rashi and Ibn Ezra that the word "נּוֹרָא" is in singular despite the plural "מַעֲשֶׂיךָ" since the verse's intent is "how awesome is each of your deeds".
      • Bereshit 49:22 (בָּנוֹת צָעֲדָה עֲלֵי שׁוּר) – See Rashi, Rashbam and Ibn Ezra, who explain the singular " צָעֲדָה" by saying that each of the many boughs climbed.11
      • Shemuel I 19:20 (וַיִּשְׁלַח שָׁאוּל מַלְאָכִים... וַיַּרְא) – Though many messengers were sent by Shaul, the verse states in singular that "he saw".  Radak explains that the form implies that "each of the messengers saw".12
      • Other examples: Other verses have been explained in a similar manner. See Yeshayahu 59:12 (וְחַטֹּאותֵינוּ עָנְתָה בָּנוּ), Yirmeyahu 46:15 (מַדּוּעַ נִסְחַף אַבִּירֶיךָ), Yirmeyahu 51:29 (כִּי קָמָה עַל בָּבֶל מַחְשְׁבוֹת י"י)
    • Devarim 30:10 ("מִצְוֺתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו הַכְּתוּבָה") – See Chizkuni and R. D"Z Hoffmann.
    • Yirmeyahu 2:34 ("נִמְצְאוּ דַּם נַפְשׁוֹת") – The word "דַּם" is singular, yet the verb "נִמְצְאוּ" is plural. See Radak that since the verse is referring to the blood of many souls, it is considered plural.

Plural = One of Many

  • Sometimes a plural is used when a verse really means "one of ---" .  For example:
    • Bereshit 8:4 - See Shadal and R. D"Z Hoffmann who both explain "עַל הָרֵי אֲרָרָט" to mean "on one of the mountains of Ararat"
    • Shemot 17:12 "" – See Ibn Ezra
    • Shofetim 12:7 – וַיִּקָּבֵר בְּעָרֵי גִלְעָד
    • Shemuel I 1:1 ("וַיְהִי אִישׁ אֶחָד מִן הָרָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים").  See Radak that the verse might mean "there was a man from one of the Ramot"
    • Shemuel i 4:15 ("וְעֵינָיו קָמָה") - See Radak, "each one of his eyes..."
    • Shemuel I 18:21 - "בִּשְׁתַּיִם תִּתְחַתֵּן בִּי הַיּוֹם" – see Radak on Shemuel I 1:1 that Shaul means, ""
    • Yirmeyahu 31:14 "רחל מבכה על בניה כי איננו" - See Ibn Ezra Shemot 17:12. Compare Radak who suggests that the form is singular as it refers to the nation.  Cf. Abarbanel.

Mixed Forms


Genealogies

Nation