B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

כִּי מֵי
כִּי־מֵי / כִּי מֵי נֹחַ זֹאת לִי אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי מֵעֲבֹר מֵי־נֹחַ עוֹד עַל־הָאָרֶץ כֵּן נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי מִקְּצֹף עָלַיִךְ וּמִגְּעָר־בָּךְ

From Keil and Deilitzsch """If we read כי מי, the word זאת must refer to the present, as the turning-point between wrath and mercy; but if we read כי־מי, זאת denotes the pouring out of wrath in connection with the captivity""".

I would be grateful if someone would explain what Keil and Deilitzsch are trying to say, I really do not understand this comment at all. The maquef, if correct, would place these first two words into the construct state. Yet in my inexperienced ears this makes no difference at all to how I originally understood the whole verse. So what is going on?
Thank you
Chris watts

Maybe he means כי-מי vs. כימי (as one word)?

You need to read the verse in context. Look at the verses preceding it, and those that follow it, מי נח has מי in construct with נח meaning “waters of Noah” as an example of the previous two verses, where Isaiah contrasts God’s displeasure with God’s favor.

Karl W. Randolph.

Hallo Karl, I understand that כִּי מֵי נֹחַ that מֵי is in construct with 'Noah', I fail to understand why all the hebrew texts I am reading seem to want to correct the Ketiv and throw in a Maquef. Added to this is the confusing reason given by Keil and his little German friend. That, and that alone, is fathomless.

ducky wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 1:20 pm Maybe he means כי-מי vs. כימי (as one word)?

The reason I asked that is because there are other versions that write כימי in one word.
After googling and seeing this commentary, I saw that he does talk about כי מי vs. כימי.
And so, it has nothing to do with the Maqaph.

He says that if we read it as כי מי נח זאת לי so the word זאת=this, gives reference to the flood (aka the disaster).
so זאת refers to the captivity and compare it to מי נח - the disaster of flood.

But if we read it as כימי נח זאת לי so now it talks about the days of Noah
ימי is the construct state of ימים (=days).
And so, the days of Noah are the days of the flood and then the promise of peace.
And with that, זאת refers to the disaster and the salvation together.

***
To be honest, this whole punctiliousness is not really necessary.
reading it as מי נח can also understood as referring to the disaster and promise.
But anyway, this is what he meant.

Hallo Ducky, I understand now, I was getting confused by the fact that he had added then subtracted the maquef, also I noticed the yud you placed in front of the word to indicate 'days' since this is not in the original text. Nevertheless, the text is clear from the beginning, it should not read 'Days' but 'waters'. So the whole Keil and Deilitzsc commentary about this was rather needless methinks. Thank you for clearing my ignorance up Ducky.
Chris watts

Hi Chris,

I didn't add the letter Y.
Maybe I didn't explain myself well.

The verse starts with four letters: כ י מ י.

The accepted version (a) writes these four letters as two words: כי + מי.
There is another version (b) that writes these four letters as one word: כימי.

The word כימי in version b is a compound of the prefix כ (=as, like) and the word ימי which is the construct form of ימים (=days).
The words כימי נח mean "as (in) the days of Noah".

So, nothing was added here.

The commentary talks about the two versions and finds how it changes (according to him) the reference of the word זאת (=this) that comes next.

Once again sorry Ducky, yes I did get that - I should have phrased things differently. Sorry.