# mem sofit in the Bible



## ChaimNimsky

Hi all!
I've a question about some verses from the Tenach. I'm discussing this issue with a friend. My claim is, that the following verses seem unnatural to me and would make much more sense if in each case (see below) the mem-sofit would be removed. He disagrees (I'll put his comments below the verses).


*T'hĭllĭm 89:51:* 
זְכֹר אֲדֹנָי חֶרְפַּת עֲבָדֶיךָ שְׂאֵתִי בְחֵיקִי כָּל רַבִּים עַמִּים

Without mem-sofit:
 זְכֹר אֲדֹנָי חֶרְפַּת עֲבָדֶיךָ שְׂאֵתִי בְחֵיקִי כָּל רַבֵּי עַמִּים


*Yeshayahu 5:23: *
מַצְדִּיקֵי רָשָׁע עֵקֶב שֹׁחַד וְצִדְקַת צַדִּיקִים יָסִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ

Without mem-sofit: 
מַצְדִּיקֵי רָשָׁע עֵקֶב שֹׁחַד וְצִדְקַת צַדִּיק יָסִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ

(He comments: "You are missing the point entirely; the noun in the second clause of _Y'shayahū_ 5:23 is צִדְקַ֥ת צַדִּיקִ֖ים (a compound noun which is singular) which is the direct object of the verb יָסִֽירוּ (“they take away”). However, the prepositional phrase מִמֶּֽנּוּ ("from him") refers to the ellipsis, i.e. "the one they take it away from” who isn’t mentioned explicitly in the verse"). 
This may be true, but I still find the second option more natural.


*Yĭrm'yahū 18:15*
כִּי שְׁכֵחֻנִי עַמִּי לַשָּׁוְא יְקַטֵּרוּ וַיַּכְשִׁלוּם בְּדַרְכֵיהֶם שְׁבִילֵי עוֹלָם לָלֶכֶת נְתִיבוֹת דֶּרֶךְ לֹא סְלוּלָה

Without mem-sofit: 
כִּי שְׁכֵחֻנִי עַמִּי לַשָּׁוְא יְקַטֵּרוּ וַיִּכָּשֽׁלוּ בְּדַרְכֵיהֶם שְׁבִילֵי עוֹלָם לָלֶכֶת נְתִיבוֹת דֶּרֶךְ לֹא סְלוּלָה

(He comments: "It's singular and, if you remove the _mém sōfĭt_ so it can be read as וַיִּכָּשְׁלוּ ("they stumbled")—making it plural—what then will its subject be? The clause would become וַיִּכָּשְׁלוּ בְּדַרְכֵיהֶם שְׁבִילֵי עוֹלָם (“the ancient paths stumbled in their ways") which doesn't make a whole lot of sense").
I disagree with his comment, since the verb וַיִּכָּשְׁלוּ can also refer to עַמִּי, just like the verb שְׁכֵחֻנִי does.

I wonder if you can help me out with this.
Many thanks in advance!


----------



## arielipi

I'm sorry but you're wrong in all of your examples.


----------



## ChaimNimsky

Thanks for your reply! 
Could you could you elaborate? The first is IMO clearly a construct state (רַבֵּי עַמִּים), whereas the original verse contains an oddity "rabbim amim". What am I missing here & what's wrong with the second example (without mem-sofit)?
In the third example, IMO the verb וַיִּכָּשְׁלוּ can also refer to עַמִּי, just like the verb שְׁכֵחֻנִי does. I may be wrong, but could you explain?


----------



## InfatigableLearner

What you have found is what is known as enclitic _mem_, a phenomenon known in other Semitic languages as well. I think a good discussion of enclitic _mem_ which you might find helpful is Horace D. Hummel, “Enclitic _Mem_ in Early Northwest Semitic, Especially Hebrew” in _Journal of Biblical Literature_ 76/2 (1957). This article discusses every one of the examples you gave and includes many more. Here is what the article says for the examples you gave:

“Ps 89 51 MT זכר . . . שאתי בחקי כל־רבים עמים ‘Remember . . . my bearing in my bosom all of many peoples.’  MT רבים is impossible, but we can easily translate רִבֵי־ם עמים ‘the controversies of the peoples.’”
-Hummel, “Enclitic _Mem_ in Early Northwest Semitic,” 98

“Isa 5 23 Reading צדיק־ם instead of the plural fits both the parallelism of the verse and the following ממנו”
-Hummel, “Enclitic _Mem_ in Early Northwest Semitic,” 94

“Jer 18 15 MT ויכשלום בדרכיהם ‘They caused them to stumble in their ways.’ Instead of _hiphil_ and a suffix, we probably should follow the context and point the verb as _niphil_ plus enclitic _mem_, as LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate evidently did.”
-Hummel, “Enclitic _Mem_ in Early Northwest Semitic,” 104

Note that enclitic _mem_ is a phenomenon of Classical Hebrew not recognized by the Masoretes which is why the text seems anomalous in places where enclitic _mem_ appears (the Masoretes, not willing to alter the consonantal text they had received, interpreted the forms as best they could).

InfatigableLearner


----------



## ChaimNimsky

Many thanks InfatigableLearner!
However, now I'm left with two contradictory replies of two people who are more knowledgable than me. ArieLipi responded "I'm sorry but you're wrong in all of your examples".

That confuses me.


----------



## ChaimNimsky

InfatigableLearner said:


> Horace D. Hummel, “Enclitic _Mem_ in Early Northwest Semitic” in _Journal of Biblical Literature_ 76/2 (1957).
> 
> “Ps 89 51 MT זכר . . . שאתי בחקי כל־רבים עמים ‘Remember . . . my bearing in my bosom all of many peoples.’  MT רבים is impossible, but we can easily translate רִבַי־ם עמים ‘the controversies of the peoples.’”
> -Hummel, “Enclitic _Mem_ in Early Northwest Semitic,” 98
> (...)


I have a question. Hummel writes “rib_*a*_i amim” (רִבַי־ם עמים). Isn't the plural construct state of רִיב “rib_*e*_i amim”?


----------



## InfatigableLearner

Checking his text again more closely, I see that he does indeed have רִבֵי _ribei_. Good catch. Will fix it.

InfatigableLearner


----------



## InfatigableLearner

ChaimNimsky,

You may also want to see John A. Emerton, “Are There Examples of Enclitic _mem_ in the Hebrew Bible?” in _Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran_, Ed. Michael V. Fox, et al., (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 321–338 and Chaim Cohen, “The Enclitic-_mem_ in Biblical Hebrew: Its Existence and Initial Discovery” in _Sefer Moshe. The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism_, Ed. Chaim Cohen, et al., (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 231–260. Emerton’s essay argues against enclitic _mem_ as a phenomenon in Classical Hebrew while Cohen argues for it. Thus even among scholars there is a difference of opinion concerning enclitic _mem_ in Classical Hebrew, but its acceptance appears to me to be the more widely held position.

InfatigableLearner


----------



## origumi

ChaimNimsky said:


> *T'hĭllĭm 89:51:*
> זְכֹר אֲדֹנָי חֶרְפַּת עֲבָדֶיךָ שְׂאֵתִי בְחֵיקִי כָּל רַבִּים עַמִּים


מלבי"ם and מצודות suggest that רבים עמים = עמים רבים, alternate word order.


> *Yeshayahu 5:23: *
> מַצְדִּיקֵי רָשָׁע עֵקֶב שֹׁחַד וְצִדְקַת צַדִּיקִים יָסִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ


 רש"י and other do not see a difficulty here. Compare to מחשבות צדיקים or תועבת צדיקים. Regarding ממנו - explained by מלבי"ם as יחיד על רבים.


> *Yĭrm'yahū 18:15*
> כִּי שְׁכֵחֻנִי עַמִּי לַשָּׁוְא יְקַטֵּרוּ וַיַּכְשִׁלוּם בְּדַרְכֵיהֶם שְׁבִילֵי עוֹלָם לָלֶכֶת נְתִיבוֹת דֶּרֶךְ לֹא סְלוּלָה


יכשלום looks indeed as an alternative form of יכשלו. I'm not sure whether it's biblical Hebrew peculiarity or "early Northwest Semitic" thing (or maybe the latter is just a longer name for the former?).


----------



## ChaimNimsky

InfatigableLearner, many thanks again!
Do you know a good online source where I can safely read or order those very interresting articles?


----------



## ChaimNimsky

Hi Origumi,
Thanks for your reply! You wrote,


origumi said:


> מלבי"ם and מצודות suggest that רבים עמים = עמים רבים, alternate word order.


Which is why _rivei 'amim_ might make more sense than _rabbim 'amim_. At least, it seems a valid option.


> רש"י and other do not see a difficulty here. Compare to מחשבות צדיקים or תועבת צדיקים. Regarding ממנו - explained by מלבי"ם as יחיד על רבים.


RaSHI & the MaLBIM are certainly great and authoritative commentators. However, as InfatigableLearner mentioned, they had to deal with the Masoretic text. The MT is not ambiguous here, but they might have found צַדִּיקִ the more natural  reading.


> יכשלום looks indeed as an alternative form of יכשלו. I'm not sure whether it's biblical Hebrew peculiarity or "early Northwest Semitic" thing (or maybe the latter is just a longer name for the former?).


My discussion partner would disagree. He likely would call the biblical Hebrew peculiarity and/or "early Northwest Semitic" thing simply poetic language and it's hard to refute such a claim. Furthermore, he comments:


> "if you remove the mem-sofit וַיִּכָּשְׁלוּ (“they stumbled”)—making it plural—what then will its subject be? The clause would become וַיִּכָּשְׁלוּ בְּדַרְכֵיהֶם שְׁבִילֵי עוֹלָם (“the ancient paths stumbled in their ways”) which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense".



I disagree, since the verb seems to refer to עַמִּי as a collective, _exactly like the verb_: יְקַטֵּ֑רוּ ("*they* have burned incense"). What would be your opinion? 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## origumi

ChaimNimsky said:


> My discussion partner would disagree. He likely would call the biblical Hebrew peculiarity and/or "early Northwest Semitic" thing simply poetic language and it's hard to refute such a claim.


I have to correct my reply in regard to וַיַּכְשִׁלוּם בדרכיהם [one must never trust blindly his intuition with such matter, as I carelessly have done]. מצודות explains: שבילי העולם הם המכשילים אותם. So וַיַּכְשִׁלוּם = ויכשילו אותם = (the roads) will cause them to stumble. Sounds to me natural and reasonable.


----------



## arielipi

Well, of course no one would speak that way today but I'll say it shortly:
ויכשלום ויכשלו - the niqqud is different with what you give and it wont be the same meaning at all.
רבים עמים to me looks like an omitted ה,
רבים העמים
or simply a swap of placing.

צדקת צדיקים is totally fine - 
טיב האנשים
would be wrong with what you propose.


----------



## ChaimNimsky

Origumi,


origumi said:


> I have to correct my reply in regard to וַיַּכְשִׁלוּם בדרכיהם [one must never trust blindly his intuition with such matter, as I carelessly have done]. מצודות explains: שבילי העולם הם המכשילים אותם. So וַיַּכְשִׁלוּם = ויכשילו אותם = (the roads) will cause them to stumble. Sounds to me natural and reasonable.


Thanks. And the alternative (where the plural verb יְקַטֵּ֑רוּ refers to עַמִּי as a collective, exactly like the verb: וַיִּכָּשְׁלוּ ("*they* have burned incense")?

Thanks


----------



## ChaimNimsky

Hi arielipi,
Thanks for your reply. You wrote,


arielipi said:


> ויכשלום ויכשלו - the niqqud is different with what you give and it wont be the same meaning at all.


Then the ones stumbling would IMO be the same ones who burned incense, as both plural verbs יְקַטֵּ֑רוּ and וַיִּכָּשְׁלוּ refer to the same subject.


> טיב האנשים
> would be wrong with what you propose.


What do you mean?

Thanks!


----------



## origumi

ChaimNimsky said:


> And the alternative (where the plural verb יְקַטֵּ֑רוּ refers to עַמִּי as a collective, exactly like the verb: יְקַטֵּ֑רוּ ("*they* have burned incense")?


There seem to be two different structures:
* לשוא יקטרו = they (my people, as subject) shall burn incense in vain
* ויכשלום בדרכיהם שבילי עולם = and the eternal paths shall cause them (my people, as direct object) stumble


----------



## ChaimNimsky

> There seem to be two different structures:
> 
> *





> לשואיקטרו = they (my people, as subject) shall burn incense
> in vain
> 
> * ויכשלוםדרכיהםדרכיעולם = and the eternal roads shall cause them (my people, as direct object)
> stumble




I understand. Is the alternative also possible? Is it possible to connect the nif'al of the verb to the same plural subject as יְקַטֵּ֑רוּ, in stead of connecting the hif'il of the verb to "_the eternal roads_". In that case there's only one subject. It seems perfectly legit to me, or am I wrong? In that case, it would IMO read, "_because My people has forgotten Me, they'll burn incense in vanity and they've stumbled in their ways, from ancient paths, to walk ways that aren't not trodden._"

Is that correct?


----------



## origumi

ChaimNimsky said:


> Is the alternative also possible? Is it possible to connect the nif'al of the verb to the same plural subject as יְקַטֵּ֑רוּ, in stead of connecting the hif'il of the verb to "_the eternal roads_".
> ...
> Is that correct?


There are few roots for which hif`il can be used as a simple verb (vs. causative). I don't know if there are examples for root כשל where יַּכְשִׁלוּ (yakhshilu, hif`il) can have the meaning of יִכָּשְׁלוּ (yikkashlu, nif`al), no matter if it's passive or deponent here.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

origumi said:


> I'm not sure whether it's biblical Hebrew peculiarity or "early Northwest Semitic" thing (or maybe the latter is just a longer name for the former?).



Northwest Semitic is a term denoting the larger language group to which Classical/Biblical Hebrew belongs along with Aramaic, Canaanite (Phoenician, Edomite, Ammonite), Ugaritic, etc. (cf. Angel Sáenz-Badillos, _A History of the Hebrew Language_, Trans. John Elwolde (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 29–49). Thus the two terms are not synonymous. The use of enclitic _mem_ is found in other languages within the Northwest Semitic language group which leads to the suspicion that it might be a hitherto unrecognized phenomenon in Classical Hebrew as well. That is what Hummel’s article and Cohen’s essay seek to demonstrate. Hummel's article for it's part gives 107 examples which he feels show that enclitic _mem_ was indeed part of Classical Hebrew as in other Northwest Semitic languages.

As for how to obtain the sources I mentioned, I have Hummel’s article in my personal library which is why I was able to access it. The journal it comes from, _Journal of Biblical Literature_, is a well-known one which I think could be found at any university library. They also have a website where their articles can be viewed for a price. The other two sources could be checked out through inter-library loan from a public library if they are not at a library in your area. Checking Worldcat will show which libraries hold these works which information can be then be given to your local library for an inter-library loan.

InfatigableLearner


----------



## origumi

InfatigableLearner said:


> Northwest Semitic is a term denoting ...


There's no need to explain what's Northwest Semitic.

The question is whether for any of the three verses in this thread there's "Northwest Semitic mem" which can be specifically demonstrated as existing beyond the biblical Hebrew phenomena. Also, many of Hummel's suggestions are disputable, as you can see here, here, and here for example.


----------



## InfatigableLearner

origumi said:


> I'm not sure whether it's biblical Hebrew peculiarity or "early Northwest Semitic" thing (or maybe the latter is just a longer name for the former?).


 


origumi said:


> There's no need to explain what's Northwest Semitic.


 
It’s hard for me to understand why there was no need to explain the difference between Northwest Semitic as a language group and Biblical Hebrew as a language within that group since you specifically asked a question about Northwest Semitic’s relation to Biblical Hebrew which assumed that the two should be equated.



origumi said:


> The question is whether for any of the three verses in this thread there's "Northwest Semitic mem" which can be specifically demonstrated as existing beyond the biblical Hebrew phenomena.


 
Well, Hummel devotes the first 7 pages of his article to discussing the existence of enclitic _mem_ in a number of other languages within the Northwest Semitic language group (thus its title, “Enclitic _Mem_ *in Early Northwest Semitic*, Especially Hebrew”). I can say from the sources I have on hand that this phenomenon is further discussed in Daniel Sivan’s grammar for Ugaritic which he illustrates with numerous examples (Daniel Sivan, _A Grammar of Ugaritic Language_ (Handbook of Oriental Studies 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 192–94, see also Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee, _A Manual of Ugaritic_ (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 61, 62). Further, although I do not have access to it, I can tell from secondary citations to it that enclitic _mem_ is also discussed by Anson F. Rainey for Canaanite as found in the Amarna Letters (Anson F. Rainey, _Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan_, Vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 227–248). A detailed discussion of enclitic _mem_ in Northwest Semitic languages is also given in Gregorio Del Olmo Lete, “The Postpositions in Semitic: the Case of the Enclitic -m” in _Aula Orientalis_ 26/1 (2008): 25–59 (see online http://www.aulaorientalis.org/aulaorientalis_xxvi_1_2008.html). The Emerton essay against Hummel that I cited for balance itself even states:

“The letter _m_ is added at the end of some words in Ugaritic, including even nouns in the construct state. The function of _m_ is uncertain, but *its presence is undeniable*. A comparable phenomenon has been ‘found in Mari names . . . and in a variety of uses in Amarna,’ as well as in Epigraphic South Arabian. It has, therefore, seemed plausible to suppose that there may be traces of it in the Hebrew Bible, especially in early Hebrew poetry.”
-Emerton, “Are There Examples,” 321 (emphasis added).

Thus if one were to check, one would indeed find that the existence of enclitic _mem_ is not a phenomenon restricted only to Classical Hebrew. Indeed, it was only from the finds at Ugarit that the phenomenon came to be recognized, examples of it in other Northwest Semitic languages being taken as scribal errors or explained otherwise up to that time.

And such was the case with Classical Hebrew. With its recognition in other Northwest Semitic languages, the question then became “does it exist in Classical Hebrew as well?” That is precisely what Hummel’s article seeks to answer. Thus Hummel provides a list of 107 places in the biblical text which he feels demonstrate the existence of enclitic _mem_ in Classical Hebrew as well; Psalm 89:51, Isaiah 5:23, and Jeremiah 18:15 being only three of them. Since Hummel the existence of enclitic _mem_ in Classical Hebrew has come to be the majority view. Thus one finds discussions of its use in Classical Hebrew in grammars (e.g. Waltke-O’Conner, _IBHS_ §9.8), lexicons (e.g., Koehler-Baumgartner, _HALOT_ s.v. מ II; Clines, _CDCH_ s.v. ־ם), and surveys (e.g. Sáenz-Badillos, _A History of the Hebrew Language_, 58–60; Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, _A History of the Hebrew Language_, ed. Raphael Kutscher (Leiden: Brill, 1982), §110). Once again, Emerton’s essay against Hummel itself acknowledges all this when it states that the postulation of enclitic _mem_ in Classical Hebrew “has won wide acceptance” (Emerton, “Are There Examples,” 321). Now whether the positing of enclitic _mem_ gives the most parsimonious explanation for the anomalous _mem_s in each of the three verses cited by ChaimNimsky is something that each person would have to examine on their own to decide. The forgoing, however, should at least show that the option is very much on the table.



origumi said:


> Also, many of Hummel's suggestions are disputable, as you can see here, here, and here for example.


 
Did I ever say that there wasn’t any dispute about Hummel’s suggestions? In my answer to ChaimNimsky I advanced a single explanation for each of his verses by pointing him to the view about enclitic _mem_ articulated in Hummel’s article since every discussion about enclitic _mem_ in Classical Hebrew begins with Hummel’s article. Shortly thereafter I made a second post in which I mentioned both the most recent and most vocal opponent of that view (John A. Emerton) as well as the most recent author that I knew to argue in support for it (Chaim Cohen). In this way, I myself pointed out that there was some dispute about enclitic _mem_. Thus I was not attempting to push a particular view onto ChaimNimsky, but rather pointed them to the most relevant sources that directly discuss enclitic _mem_ in Classical Hebrew *so that ChaimNimsky could research the issue and decide for themself*.

Now with reference to your three sources to show that there is some dispute about Hummel’s suggestions, a point already conceded from the beginning. The first of them is the very essay from Emerton which I pointed ChaimNimsky to. The second is a commentary which takes issue with Hummel’s explanation of Isaiah 3:12, but checking the footnotes shows that Williamson, the author, is dependent on Emerton’s essay. Finally, the third is a book on the Urim and Thummim in which the author, Van Dam, states that “the very existence of the _m_ enclitic . . . in the Hebrew Scripture [_sic!_] has been called into question” supporting this with two book reviews, one from G. R. Driver and one from J. A. Emerton, an essay by G. Emerson, and an unpublished dissertation by H. A. R. Blejer (Van Dam, “The Urim and Thummim,” 98n71). So once again Emerton is cited, though this time from a book review, because, as I said, he is the most recent and most vocal opponent of enclitic _mem_.

G. R. Driver too is a notable opponent of the enclitic _mem_ view, but his book review, appearing in 1965, is nearly 50 years old and thus does not represent the most advanced form of the argument against enclitic _mem_ as Emerton’s essay does. G. Emerson’s essay “Widening Horizons: Some Complexities in Hebrew Grammar” (1980) provides only a brief three page overview of the discussion concerning enclitic _mem_ taking no position in that discussion itself. Though giving a nicely balanced overview, it does not add anything new to the discussion that is not found in primary sources that are specifically dedicated to the question of enclitic _mem_ in Classical Hebrew such as I cited. For those who wish to read it, see https://archive.org/details/HorizonsInSemiticStudiesArticlesForTheStudent (pages 84–86). Blejer’s dissertation “Discourse Markers in Early Semitic, and Their Reanalyses in Subsequent Dialects” (1986) by its title alone would appear to contain a good discussion, but unable to access it, I do not know what she actually says about enclitic _mem_ or how accurately Van Dem has represented her.

At any rate, yes enclitic _mem_ exists in a number of Northwest Semitic languages and yes it exists in Classical Hebrew as well if we are to judge from the majority of scholars. This does not mean that everyone agrees and even among those who accept the existence of enclitic _mem_ there are those who take issue with certain examples Hummel originally suggested. However, there are many areas where there has been debate when it comes to Classical Hebrew, e.g. are verbs in Classical Hebrew tense or aspect based? I think it would be ridiculous to expect the person who wishes to learn Classical Hebrew to postpone their learning or remain completely neutral until there is complete consensus in all these areas. Rather, one must provisionally go with the views that make the most sense in terms of simplicity and explanatory power, always cognizant that there are still others out there. As it stands I answered ChaimNimsky by providing them with the majority view while pointing them to the most relevant sources on the matter both for and against it. I really do not see how I did ChaimNimsky any disservice in providing the answer that I did.

InfatigableLearner


----------

