See Tehilim 118, 10:

כָּל-גּוֹיִ֥ם סְבָב֑וּנִי בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְ֝הוָ֗ה כִּ֣י אֲמִילַֽם: ‏

The English translation in dTorah is:

All nations surround me; but in the name of the Lord I will cut them off.

Radak presents several possibilities. The spocker is Jewish people, or David, the surrounder of David, Yisrael and Philistins and peoples.

The word AMILAM is translated as cut off as אני אמול אותם. so אותם will keep a Kamats under the ת. So under the Lamed we expect to see a Kamats. It is also a Sof Passuk.

I feel that the Radak explained why not a Kamats. He says that the patach is replacing a tsere. "AMILEYM" "אמילֵם". as in Devarim 1, 13.

וַאֲשִׂימֵ֖ם בְּרָאשֵׁיכֶֽם: ‏

This tsere will be transformed in patach because of the Sof passuk.

All this seems logic. But I don't know why this Tsere is not every time a kamats. Grammar is obscur for me, someone can help?

  1. Why a Tsere, there is not אותֵם?
  2. Why a tsere is transformed in patach when a patach itself is transformed in kamats in sof passuk?

One of the options I thought is that otam --> suffix am, lahem --> suffix em. But if אמיל is to cut, it is more adapted with אותם.

I can try an answer, but the fact that this answer is more theoretical than masoretical is a weakness and I am not sure that it is allowed to call this an answer, so I edit it here.

there is a possibility to give a Et or to skip is, (someone has doresh etim shebatora excepted Et Hashem Elokecha Tira) that lead to two kind of suffixes:

  1. "ותתפוס הוא" = "ותתפסהו בבגדו"
  2. "ראם" = "ראה אותם"

So sometimes 2 possibilities for the same meaning. Barechem, Taharem. Barecham, Taharam.

Amilem, Amilam (Amilom in ashkenazic pronunciation which shows the Kamats is easier for me here.)

Amilem in Sof Passuk --> Amilam and not Amilam.

I have still not found the principle and the explanation for the tsere transformation in patach with sof pasuk

  • ... Because that’s how dikduk works, that a tzeirei becomes a patach and a patach becomes a kamatz? – DonielF Sep 25 '17 at 16:37
  • @DonielF WHY NOT KAMATS – kouty Sep 25 '17 at 19:28
  • That’s like asking why the word doesn’t keep its tzeirei. Those are the rules. – DonielF Sep 25 '17 at 19:29
  • @DonielF perhaps it's different. a tsere at the end is not an exception, but a patach is. the patach will be transformed in komots at the end of a pasuk – kouty Sep 25 '17 at 19:58
  • No. The rule is that when it’s ordinarily a patach it becomes a kamatz. As this is only a patach because of its location, it doesn’t fit the criterion for the rule to be invoked. – DonielF Sep 25 '17 at 20:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .