Comentários de Citação sobre II Samuel 19:27

בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי עין, the branch סעיף, is referred to as בן, as it is an offshoot of the tree. Seeing that it is called בן in the masculine mode, he word פרת, the adjective modifying it, ought to be in the masculine mode also, but it is not. Suddenly, the Torah changes grammar in mid-stream and speaks of בנות צעדה עלי עין instead of בנים צעדו עלי עין, “his branches spilling (running) over the wall.” The reason is that the word סעיף also occurs as a feminine noun, as in Ezekiel 31,6 בסעפתיו קננו, “in its boughs they made their nest.” Such nouns in a dual role are not that rare, as for instance we find the חמור, male donkey, treated as if it were an אתון, the she-ass in Samuel II 19,27 אחבשה לי החמור וארכב עליה, “I will saddle my donkey and ride on her.” The donkey is both a beast, בהמה, a feminine noun, and a male of its species. We are therefore free to use either gender when referring to it. A similar example is found in Exodus 22,25 where the Torah describes the word שלמה, dress, as masculine although generally we always use it as feminine. The fact is that the specific garment “dress, שלמה,” is at the same time a garment, בגד, a noun describing all garments, a masculine noun. While a bough, פארה, is indeed a feminine noun, referring to a specific type of branch, the word סעיף includes many types of branches and is a masculine noun. There are quite a few examples of this grammatical phenomenon. As to the addition of the letter ת in פרת, it substitutes for the letter ה as it does on many occasions. Look at Deuteronomy 31,29 for instance, where we have וקראת instead of וקראה.

נשני, the construction of the word from the root נשש is similar to a similar construction of the root חנן in 33,11 where Yaakov explained to his brother Esau that he was looking at his children. The proof of this is the dagesh in the letter ש. [which effectively doubles that letter. Ed.] If the word nashani had been derived from the root נשה as in Isaiah 44,21 לא תנשני, or as in Lamentations 3,17, נשיתי טובה, where the root is one that loses its last root letter, the Torah here should have written nishani, instead of nashani. It then would have been parallel to the construction in Samuel II 19,27 עבדי רמני, rimani from the root רמה, to deceive, and other similar examples.