וַ֭אֲנִי נָסַ֣כְתִּי מַלְכִּ֑י עַל־צִ֝יּ֗וֹן הַר־קָדְשִֽׁי׃
דאָס האָב איך דאָך אױפֿגעשטעלט מײַן מלךאױף צִיון מײַן הײליקן באַרג.
Ibn Ezra
And the third thing, even the words which are in the holy tongue have great mistakes in them, as inאנסיכה מלכי לפניו. This matter is found herein — ואני נסכתי מלכי as for me, I established my King(Psalm 2:6). But that is in the qal form, in the structure of נפלתי "I fell" and נדרתי "I vowed," so the future form is אסוך or אנסוך "I will establish", as in אפול "I will fall" or אדור "I will vow." And from the causative form of הפיל "he made to fall," the future is אפיל "I will make to fall," and thus הסיך "he made a libation" becomes אסיך or אנסיך "I will make a libation" when the nun appears, as in ולנפיל ירך to make the thigh fall (Numbers 5:22). Thus, the interpretation of אנסיכה מלכי would be "I will make him into a libation" — as in let me not make a libation of their bloody libations (Psalm 16:4). And some interpret נסכתי מלכי as "I anointed," but if that interpretation is true, there is a mistake.note In that it would be mistaken to assume a human could anoint God. Secondly, why not say "I will exalt my King" or "I will praise and thank" or "I will sanctify?" He wanted a word that would show off his wisdom to those listening!
Radak
ויאמר למך לנשיו, our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 23,4 state that when Lemech wanted to sleep with his wives they refused him. They used several arguments, one being that they were afraid of the deluge and they did not want to give birth to children already doomed. Lemech countered that if Kayin whose deed of foul murder had resulted in suspension of his death sentence for 7 generations, then he, Lemech, who had killed inadvertently, accidentally, would not be punished for far longer than that, and his wives had no reason to worry. Even if a deluge would come tomorrow, he was free from the taint of sin and would not become its victim. He went further, saying that even assuming he had deliberately killed a man or a child, G’d would forgive him, seeing he had many merits which would offset one such sin. Kayin had not had such merits even before he killed his brother but had sinned so that G’d had rejected his offering, and still his sentence had not been carried out for seven generations. This is how he arrived at the expression שבעה ושבעים as opposed to שבעתים the period during which G’d had suspended the carrying out of the sentence of death on Kayin. He appealed to G’d’s patience to extend this patience to him. It is also possible that Lemech’s logic was totally foolish, as hinted at by Rashi, as the wives of Lemech did not worry about retribution for Lemech’s sin but the long overdue retribution for Kayin’s sin, something that would include all of Kayin’s offspring. We have to assume that Lemech’s speech to his wives took place before his wife Adah had given birth to Yaval.
Some of our sages (Tanchuma 11), claim that Lemech was blind and that when whenever he went out hunting a child (Tuval Kayin) would serve as his guide. When the child spotted the animal he would tell Lemech to draw his bow and aim his arrow in a certain direction. In this fashion Kayin, while being mistaken for an animal, was killed. Other sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,12) claim that the “sign” provided by G’d for Kayin to warn people and beasts not to kill him, was a horn which grew out of his forehead. Kayin, being constantly on the move in the field due to G’d’s curse, was mistaken by the boy accompanying Lemech for a wild beast seeing that it had a horn on its forehead. Once the boy and Lemech came close to inspect the “beast” they thought they had killed, the boy told Lemech that they had killed a human being. Lemech then suddenly realised that he had killed his ancestor Kayin and this gave rise to his words איש הרגתי לפצעי וילד לחבורתי, he told his wives not to worry because whereas Kayin had murdered intentionally, he had reason to believe that G’d would delay punishing him for longer even than He had delayed Kayin’s punishment.
Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi asked Rabbi Yochanan why our verse mentioned both איש and ילד, would not either have been enough? Rabbi Yochanan replied that the word איש refers to the slain’s physical size, i.e. he was an adult, whereas the word ילד refers to the age of the slain person. [in which case the slain person was not Kayin at all, seeing that if he was still alive during Lemech’s time he must have been at least 500 years plus at the time he was killed by Lemech who was already married. Ed.] It is also possible to understand the passage as hinting at the jealousies between Lemech’s two wives, especially, since it appears that no one prior to Lemech had taken two wives. This is also why in Talmudic parlance such wives are known as צרות. This expression occurs first in connection with Chanah and Peninah the two wives of Elkanah (Samuel I 1,6). Lemech threatened to kill both his wives if they would continue to feud with one another. He made it plain that he had no reason to be afraid of the punishment for killing them, since G’d would be even more lenient with him than He had been with Kayin who had not had any good reason to kill his brother. Seeing that the number שבעה had already been used in connection with Kayin and his punishment, Lemech used an amended version of the number seven in describing how long it would take for him to be punished.
According to our commentary earlier on verse 15, Lemech intended here to make plain to his wives that whoever would kill him if he were forced to kill his wives, would experience far greater retribution than the one who killed Kayin, concerning whose killing G’d had warned the killer of especially severe (not sevenfold) retribution. The justification for such drastic retribution was that G’d Himself had assured Kayin of protection against being killed arbitrarily, hence the crime would be both against G’d and against Kayin. In practice this meant that the penalty could be paid only by the offspring of the killer. In addition to the killer himself. G’d’s retribution would include those who are close to the killer, for instance. His reasoning was that whereas he would have killed with provocation, Kayin had killed without provocation, ergo anyone killing him would be far more guilty than Kayin had been at the time. Seeing that G’d had not bothered to warn anyone who would kill Lemech of such draconian punishment, he had to go on record himself. The reference to פצע, which seems unrelated to killing, is to a wound which results in the victim bleeding, whereas חבורה is an injury that does not result in blood flowing from the victim. He associated the word חבורה with children, as these, being frail, are more likely to die from injuries that did not result in loss of blood. The word הרגתי is to be understood as the same as אהרג, i.e. a future mode, seeing he is warning of what may yet occur. Alternatively, the references to injuries refer to he himself being injured, and he is warning those who might injure him that he would retaliate by killing them. According to the first explanation the letters י at the end of the word לפצעי and לחבורתי would refer to the people causing such injuries, whereas according to the second explanation these letters would refer to the ones sustaining such injuries. We have numerous examples of such constructions, for instance Psalms 2,6 ואני נסכתי מלכי, “but I have installed my king, etc.” or Psalms 74,12 ואלוקים מלכי מקדם, “O G’d my King from old;” in the former the letter י refers to the passive subject, in the letter to the active party.
Some of our sages (Tanchuma 11), claim that Lemech was blind and that when whenever he went out hunting a child (Tuval Kayin) would serve as his guide. When the child spotted the animal he would tell Lemech to draw his bow and aim his arrow in a certain direction. In this fashion Kayin, while being mistaken for an animal, was killed. Other sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,12) claim that the “sign” provided by G’d for Kayin to warn people and beasts not to kill him, was a horn which grew out of his forehead. Kayin, being constantly on the move in the field due to G’d’s curse, was mistaken by the boy accompanying Lemech for a wild beast seeing that it had a horn on its forehead. Once the boy and Lemech came close to inspect the “beast” they thought they had killed, the boy told Lemech that they had killed a human being. Lemech then suddenly realised that he had killed his ancestor Kayin and this gave rise to his words איש הרגתי לפצעי וילד לחבורתי, he told his wives not to worry because whereas Kayin had murdered intentionally, he had reason to believe that G’d would delay punishing him for longer even than He had delayed Kayin’s punishment.
Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi asked Rabbi Yochanan why our verse mentioned both איש and ילד, would not either have been enough? Rabbi Yochanan replied that the word איש refers to the slain’s physical size, i.e. he was an adult, whereas the word ילד refers to the age of the slain person. [in which case the slain person was not Kayin at all, seeing that if he was still alive during Lemech’s time he must have been at least 500 years plus at the time he was killed by Lemech who was already married. Ed.] It is also possible to understand the passage as hinting at the jealousies between Lemech’s two wives, especially, since it appears that no one prior to Lemech had taken two wives. This is also why in Talmudic parlance such wives are known as צרות. This expression occurs first in connection with Chanah and Peninah the two wives of Elkanah (Samuel I 1,6). Lemech threatened to kill both his wives if they would continue to feud with one another. He made it plain that he had no reason to be afraid of the punishment for killing them, since G’d would be even more lenient with him than He had been with Kayin who had not had any good reason to kill his brother. Seeing that the number שבעה had already been used in connection with Kayin and his punishment, Lemech used an amended version of the number seven in describing how long it would take for him to be punished.
According to our commentary earlier on verse 15, Lemech intended here to make plain to his wives that whoever would kill him if he were forced to kill his wives, would experience far greater retribution than the one who killed Kayin, concerning whose killing G’d had warned the killer of especially severe (not sevenfold) retribution. The justification for such drastic retribution was that G’d Himself had assured Kayin of protection against being killed arbitrarily, hence the crime would be both against G’d and against Kayin. In practice this meant that the penalty could be paid only by the offspring of the killer. In addition to the killer himself. G’d’s retribution would include those who are close to the killer, for instance. His reasoning was that whereas he would have killed with provocation, Kayin had killed without provocation, ergo anyone killing him would be far more guilty than Kayin had been at the time. Seeing that G’d had not bothered to warn anyone who would kill Lemech of such draconian punishment, he had to go on record himself. The reference to פצע, which seems unrelated to killing, is to a wound which results in the victim bleeding, whereas חבורה is an injury that does not result in blood flowing from the victim. He associated the word חבורה with children, as these, being frail, are more likely to die from injuries that did not result in loss of blood. The word הרגתי is to be understood as the same as אהרג, i.e. a future mode, seeing he is warning of what may yet occur. Alternatively, the references to injuries refer to he himself being injured, and he is warning those who might injure him that he would retaliate by killing them. According to the first explanation the letters י at the end of the word לפצעי and לחבורתי would refer to the people causing such injuries, whereas according to the second explanation these letters would refer to the ones sustaining such injuries. We have numerous examples of such constructions, for instance Psalms 2,6 ואני נסכתי מלכי, “but I have installed my king, etc.” or Psalms 74,12 ואלוקים מלכי מקדם, “O G’d my King from old;” in the former the letter י refers to the passive subject, in the letter to the active party.