Psa 116:4 | KD | STEP | Not only is כּי אהבתּי “I love (like, am well pleased) that,” like ἀγαπῶ ὅτι, Thucydides vi. 36, contrary to the usage of the language, but the thought, “I love that Jahve answereth me,” is also tame and flat, and inappropriate to the continuation in Psa 116:2. Since have come from , אהבתּי is to be understood according to ארחמך in , so that it has the following יהוה as its object, not it is true grammatically, but logically. The poet is fond of this pregnant use of the verb without an expressed object, cf. אקרא in , and האמנתּי in Psa 116:10. The Pasek after ישׁמע is intended to guard against the blending of the final a‛ with the initial 'a of אדני (cf. Psa 56:1-13 :18; , in Baer). In the accentuation prevents the rendering vocem orationis meae (Vulgate, lxx) by means of Mugrash . The ı̂ of קולי will therefore no more be the archaic connecting vowel (Ew. §211, b ) than in ; the poet has varied the genitival construction of to the permutative. The second כי, following close upon the first, makes the continuation of the confirmation retrospective. “In my days” is, as in , Bar. 4:20, cf. בחיּי in , and frequently, equivalent to “so long as I live.” We even here hear the tone of Ps 18 ( ), which is continued in as a freely borrowed passage. Instead of the “bands” (of Hades) there, the expression here is מצרי, angustiae , plural of meetsar, after the form מסב in ; (Böttcher, De inferis , §423); the straitnesses of Hades are deadly perils which can scarcely be escaped. The futures אמצא and אקרא, by virtue of the connection, refer to the contemporaneous past. אנּה (viz., בלישׁן בקשׁה, i.e., in a suppliant sense) is written with He instead of Aleph here and in five other instances, as the Masora observes. It has its fixed Metheg in the first syllable, in accordance with which it is to be pronounced ānna (like בּתּים, bāttim ), and has an accented ultima not merely on account of the following יהוה = אדני (vid., on ), but in every instance; for even where (the Metheg having been changed into a conjunctive) it is supplied with two different accents, as in ; , the second indicates the tone-syllable. Instead now of repeating “and Jahve answered me,” the poet indulges in a laudatory confession of general truths which have been brought vividly to his mind by the answering of his prayer that he has experienced.

‏ Psalms 116:4

Not only is כּי אהבתּי “I love (like, am well pleased) that,” like ἀγαπῶ ὅτι, Thucydides vi. 36, contrary to the usage of the language, but the thought, “I love that Jahve answereth me,” is also tame and flat, and inappropriate to the continuation in Psa 116:2. Since Psa 116:3-4 have come from Psa 18:5-17, אהבתּי is to be understood according to ארחמך in Psa 18:2, so that it has the following יהוה as its object, not it is true grammatically, but logically. The poet is fond of this pregnant use of the verb without an expressed object, cf. אקרא in Psa 116:2, and האמנתּי in Psa 116:10. The Pasek after ישׁמע is intended to guard against the blending of the final a‛ with the initial 'a of אדני (cf. Psa 56:1-13 :18; Psa 5:2, in Baer). In Psa 116:1 the accentuation prevents the rendering vocem orationis meae (Vulgate, lxx) by means of Mugrash. The ı̂ of קולי will therefore no more be the archaic connecting vowel (Ew. §211, b) than in Lev 26:42; the poet has varied the genitival construction of Psa 28:6 to the permutative. The second כי, following close upon the first, makes the continuation of the confirmation retrospective. “In my days” is, as in Isa 39:8, Bar. 4:20, cf. בחיּי in Psa 63:5, and frequently, equivalent to “so long as I live.” We even here hear the tone of Ps 18 (Psa 18:2), which is continued in Psa 18:3-4 as a freely borrowed passage. Instead of the “bands” (of Hades) there, the expression here is מצרי, angustiae, plural of meetsar, after the form מסב in Psa 118:5; Lam 1:3 (Böttcher, De inferis, §423); the straitnesses of Hades are deadly perils which can scarcely be escaped. The futures אמצא and אקרא, by virtue of the connection, refer to the contemporaneous past. אנּה (viz., בלישׁן בקשׁה, i.e., in a suppliant sense) is written with He instead of Aleph here and in five other instances, as the Masora observes. It has its fixed Metheg in the first syllable, in accordance with which it is to be pronounced ānna (like בּתּים, bāttim), and has an accented ultima not merely on account of the following יהוה = אדני (vid., on Psa 3:8), but in every instance; for even where (the Metheg having been changed into a conjunctive) it is supplied with two different accents, as in Gen 50:17; Exo 32:31, the second indicates the tone-syllable. ^{▼▼Kimchi, mistaking the vocation of the Metheg, regards אנּה (אנּא) as Milel. But the Palestinian and the Babylonian systems of pointing coincide in this, that the beseeching אנא (אנה) is Milra, and the interrogatory אנה Milel (with only two exceptions in our text, which is fixed according to the Palestinian Masora, viz., Psa 139:7; Deu 1:28, where the following word begins with Aleph), and these modes of accenting accord with the origin of the two particles. Pinsker (Einleitung, S. xiii.) insinuates against the Palestinian system, that in the cases where אנא has two accents the pointing was not certain of the correct accentuation, only from a deficient knowledge of the bearings of the case.}

Instead now of repeating “and Jahve answered me,” the poet indulges in a laudatory confession of general truths which have been brought vividly to his mind by the answering of his prayer that he has experienced.