Principle Eleven. An elucidation of the pronominal suffixes of feminine nouns that end in he or tav, and an explanation of the difference between them.

1. Know that nouns whose feminine ending is a final he, when they take pronominal suffixes, change that he into a soft tav. Thus from tsedaqah one says tsidqato, tsidqati, tsidqatam, and so in all cases. But those nouns whose ending is an original tav appear in all singular pronominal suffixes with a dageshed tav. Thus from ateret and tiferet one says aterato, tiferato, ateratam, tiferatam. By this rule you may distinguish the two classes. Accordingly, forms such as milḥamto (“his war”) and mishmarto (“his charge”) show that their absolute forms are milḥemet and mishmeret. For if the absolute forms were milḥamah and mishmerah, their pronominal forms would be milḥamato and mishmerato with a soft tav. And those nouns that have a merely added a final he behave differently in pronominal forms: from miqneh one says miqneka, miqni, and the like; but in the other suffixes the he becomes vocalized, as in miqnehu, miqneha, miqnehem, miqnehon.

2. Know that feminine nouns in plural, when they take pronominal suffixes, may appear with either of the two plural markers: with yod, the marker of masculine plurality, or with tav, the marker of feminine plurality. Thus one says tsidqotav, tsidqotekha, and the like. Likewise, even those nouns which in the singular take pronominal suffixes with a dageshed tav, as explained above, appear in the plural pronominal forms with a soft tav, such as milḥamotav and mishmerotav. The reason for this is the presence of the ḥolem, after which a dagesh cannot properly occur.

3. Know that nouns which are already in the plural, such as shifḥot (“maidservants”) and tsidqot (“righteous deeds”), may take pronominal suffixes for the third person in two different ways. The first way is with a mem of the suffix following the plural ending vav–tav, as in shifḥotam and tsidqotam. The second way is with a he following the plural ending vav–tav, as in shifḥotehem and tsidqotehem. However, forms such as shifḥatam and tsidqatam are pronominal forms of the singular feminine, as I explained above. This is what Rabbi Shelomo Yirḥi (Rashi) explained regarding the verse va-tikhl telunatam (Numbers 17:25). These are his words: “There is a distinction between telunatam and telunotehem: telunatam refers to a single complaint, whereas telunotehem is a noun in the singular form, even if there are many complaints.” Up to here are his words. However, the rabbi did not explicitly explain the grammatical difference between telunatam and telunotehem.

4. And I will now explain the difference between them by way of an example. Suppose there are Reʾuven and Shimʿon who together own a single maidservant. Of her we say: “This is their maidservant,” that is, shifḥatam, belonging jointly to Reʾuven and Shimʿon. But if each of them owns one maidservant, we say of them: shifḥotam (“their maidservants”). And if each of them owns two or three maidservants, we say of them: shifḥotehem (“their maidservants” in the fuller plural). I have already resolved to compose a separate book in which I will explain all the grammatical remarks made by Rabbi Shelomo Yirḥi of blessed memory in his commentary on the Torah, if the blessed Name should prolong my life.