B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Psalms 35:21 - 22 תהלים
35:21 וַיַּרְחִ֥יבוּ עָלַ֗י פִּ֫יהֶ֥ם אָ֭מְרוּ הֶאָ֣ח ׀ הֶאָ֑ח רָאֲתָ֥ה עֵינֵֽינוּ׃
35:22 רָאִ֣יתָה יְ֭הוָה אַֽל־תֶּחֱרַ֑שׁ אֲ֝דֹנָ֗י אֲל־תִּרְחַ֥ק מִמֶּֽנִּי׃

21Yea, they open their mouth wide against me;
They say: ‘Aha, aha, our eye hath seen it.’
22Thou hast seen, O LORD; keep not silence;
O Lord, be not far from me.
JPS 1917

Does Psalm 35:21 really say "our eye has seen it" or "has seen"
and does Psalm 35:22 say "You saw it" or "You saw"?

In Hebrew, there is no difference. You don't have to have an explicit object. The same is true in modern Hebrew.

NRSV translates it as "ours eyes have seen." Notice that עֵינֵ֫ינוּ is plural "our eyes." The verb is singular, though (רָאֲתָה).

Some books have the word עיננו. Wouldn't that be "our eye" singular?
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2635.htm

I am just curious, but if Psalm 35:21 said "our eye has seen it (her)", how would it be spelled ראתה or ראתתה ? Would it look the same?

Kenneth Greifer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:58 pm Some books have the word עיננו. Wouldn't that be "our eye" singular?
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2635.htm

The Vulgate (viderunt oculi nostri) and the Septuagint (εἶδαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν) both go with the plural. The Leningrad Codex has plural; the Aleppo Codex has singular. I tend to go after the Aleppo Codex in personal preference.

Kenneth Greifer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:02 pm I am just curious, but if Psalm 35:21 said "our eye has seen it (her)", how would it be spelled ראתה or ראתתה ? Would it look the same?

The only suffix we have on ראתה specifically is 2ms: רָאָֽתְךָ in Job 42:5. We don't have it with a 3fs suffix. In fact, the only 3fs qal perfect verb that we see with 3fs suffix is אֲחָזַ֫תָּה in Jeremiah 49:24. Assuming there was a reason to use a feminine object, it would certainly double up the tav, but I'm not sure about the ultimate vocalization (since such a form doesn't exist). I assume, based on the other forms, that it would be רְאָתַ֫תָּה.

If we include the piel, we have the following forms with perfect 3fs with 3fs suffix:
1 Sam 1:6 וְכִֽעֲסַ֤תָּה
Isa 34:17 חִלְּקַ֥תָּה
Jer 49:24 אֲחָזַ֖תָּה
Eze 14:15 וְשִׁכְּלָ֑תָּה (kamats because of pause)
Rut 3:6 צִוַּ֖תָּה

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:33 pm
Rut 3:6 צִוַּ֖תָּה

Ruth 3:6 is interesting because it is a verb with the third root letter hay like "to see" ראה.

Actually, Jason, I don't care if the verb is kal or piel or any other form of the verb. I am just curious about verbs with the letter hay as the third root letter that have the "her" ending attached to the end of the 3fs perfect because I was curious if the letter tav would be written twice or just once.
When you said the tav would be doubled, did you mean it would be written twice or once, but somehow the sound was doubled?

Kenneth Greifer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:45 pm

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:33 pm
Rut 3:6 צִוַּ֖תָּה

Ruth 3:6 is interesting because it is a verb with the third root letter hay like "to see" ראה.

You're right! It seems to have swallowed up the other heh. With that in mind, I guess it might be רָאַ֫תָּה. Great catch. The question is, though, if there's a reason to have a feminine object from the context. I see how why you asked what you asked. You're suggesting that this form is ambiguous (in the consonants) and that perhaps the first word of the next verse should be read as if it had a 3fs suffix, too - right?