וענו ואמרו ידינו לא שפכה את הדם הזה ועינינו לא ראו
As written, there is disagreement between the subject ידינו (feminine plural) and the verb שפכה (feminine singular). The Massoretes gave us the קרי to replace שפכה with שפכו, thus:
Would you consider the possibility of reading it as ידנו שפכה instead? Perhaps this is just a long tsere written with a vowel letter unintentionally? A couple of chapters earlier (Deut 15:14), we see העניק as an infinitive absolute, which is normally written without yod. On the other hand, it does make it fit well with the plural use of eyes in the second line (“our hands did not x” and “our eyes did not y”).
What do you guys think?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel The Hebrew Café יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Well it's certainly possible this is just a copyist error of dittography (ידי). The LXX goes with plural for both (Αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐξέχεαν), but whether this demonstrates a Hebrew text which had the plural, or whether it's just good translating is not able to determine either way.
Notwithstanding, the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript 4QDeutf has the plural and not the singular here:
S_Walch wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 12:36 pm
So I would go with the singular being an error in the Masoretic text or an earlier ancestor.
I can totally understand how someone could be copying and hear the singular instead of the plural (יָדֵ֫נוּyāḏḗnû instead of יָדֵ֫ינוּyāḏếnû), hold that form in their mind while moving forward, and then accidentally change the verb to match what they had in their mind. Thanks for providing the DSS image.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel The Hebrew Café יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Actually this form שפכה is the archaic form of the plural feminine perfect.
So there is no error or typo here.
later on, this form was lost (probably because the singular form "took" it) and then the feminine plural used the masculine form (as שפכו which is both masculine and feminine).
There are more verses that this archaic form is seen.