Unusual Forms

I. Introduction – Often, two nouns are connected to show possession of one by the other ("x" of "y") in a form called "סמיכות" or "the construct chain". The first noun of the pair (the נסמך) often takes a unique morphological form and is said to be in the construct state, while the second noun (the סומך) maintains its usual form and is said to be in the absolute state.  For example, in the noun pair "מַכַּת בָּרָד" (a plague of hail), the word "מַכַּת" is in the construct state (with the "kamatz-heh" of the original noun מַכָּה being replaced with a "patach-taf"), while the word "בָּרָד" is in the absolute state.¹

II. Exceptional Forms – Certain words look like they are in the construct state, but are not followed by another noun. For example, Yeshayahu 14:6 reads, "מַכַּת בִּלְתִּי סָרָה", where the word "מַכַּת" is identical in form to the construct state but is not followed by a "סומך", a second noun to which it is connected.

• Some commentators suggest that, in such cases, the second noun is simply assumed and must be filled in by the reader.²
• Others, however, suggest that these words are not in the construct state at all, but are rather a variant (perhaps poetic) form of the absolute noun.³

III. Examples – Here are several examples, with notes as to how various exegetes explain each case:

• Yeshayahu 28:4  ("צִיצַת נֹבֵל") – Contrast Radak who suggests that "צִיצַת" is a variant of  "ציצה‎"⁴ with Ibn Ezra and Shadal who suggest that it is in the construct state, with an assumed second noun (סומך). They suggest that the phrase is short for "ציצת עלה נובל" or "ציצת ציץ נובל".
• Yeshayahu 33:6:( "חׇכְמַת וָדָעַת") – Contrast Radak who suggests that "חׇכְמַת" is a variation of "חׇכְמה" with Ibn Ezra who suggests that one must supply the missing second noun (though he leaves the specifics for the reader to decide).
• Yeshayahu 35:2: ("גִּילַת וְרַנֵּן") - Compare Radak (on Yirmeyahu 48:34) who reads "גילת" as "גילה" and Ibn Ezra who says it is short for "גילת לב"
• Tehillim 65:10: ("רַבַּת תַּעְשְׁרֶנָּה")  – Contrast several commentators who suggest that "רַבַּת" means "much" (equivalent to הרבה), with Sforno who suggests that it is in the construct state, short for "רבת עם".  The form "רַבַּת" appears several times without a "סומך" (the second noun). See Tehillim 120:6 "רַבַּת שָׁכְנָה לָּהּ נַפְשִׁי,"‎⁵ Tehillim 123:4 (רַבַּת שָׂבְעָה לָּהּ נַפְשֵׁנוּ), Tehillim 129:1-2 (רַבַּת צְרָרוּנִי), and Divrei HaYamim 30:17 (רַבַּת בַּקָּהָל, רַבַּת מֵאֶפְרַיִם).
• Tehillim 132:4 ("אִם אֶתֵּן שְׁנַת לְעֵינָי") – Contrast Radak who suggests that "שְׁנַת" is equivalent to "שינה" (sleep) with Ibn Ezra who suggests that this is short for "שנת צהריים" (afternoon nap).⁶
• Eikhah 2:18 ("אַל תִּתְּנִי פוּגַת לָךְ") – Contrast Ibn Ezra who suggests that this is in the construct state, short for "פוגת עין", with Radak (on Yirmeyahu 48:34) who says "פוּגַת" is equivalent to "פוגה"
• Other examples: Melakhim II 9:17 "‎‎‏שִׁפְעַת אֲנִי רֹאֶה",‎⁷ Mishlei 24:9 "‏‎‎‏‎‏‎‎‏‏‏וְתוֹעֲבַת לְאָדָם",‎⁸ Yeshayahu 9:2 "‎‏‎כְּשִׂמְחַת בַּקָּצִיר"‎⁹

Several cases of unusual vocalization have been explained as attempts to make a word conform to the vocalization (or pronunciation) of another word in the verse, producing a rhyme. Several examples follow:

• "יְכַסְיֻמוּ" (Shemot 15:5) - See Rashbam.
•  אֶת מוֹצָאֲךָ וְאֶת [מוֹבָאֶךָ] (Shemuel II 3:25) - See Shadal on Shemot 15:5 (where he brings several examples).
• "מוֹצָאָיו וּמוֹבָאָיו" (Yechezkel 43:11)