הַמְעַ֖ט

Alphabet Analysis

The word

1. word🔊 הַמְעַ֖ט

   ha-me-AT

   is it a little
2. clause🔊 הַמְעַ֖ט מתזנתך מִתַּזְנוּתָֽיִךְ׃

   ha-me-AT me-tse-nat-ekh mit-taz-nu-TA-yikh

   is it a little from your prostituting from your acts of prostitution
3. sentence🔊 וַתִּקְחִ֞י אֶת־בָּנַ֤יִךְ וְאֶת־בְּנוֹתַ֙יִךְ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יָלַ֣דְתְּ לִ֔י וַתִּזְבָּחִ֥ים לָהֶ֖ם לֶאֱכ֑וֹל הַמְעַ֖ט מתזנתך מִתַּזְנוּתָֽיִךְ׃

   va-tik-KHI et-ba-NA-yikh ve-et-be-NO-ta-yikh a-SHER ya-LAD-te LI va-tiz-ba-KHIM la-HEM le-e-KHOL ha-me-AT me-tse-nat-ekh mit-taz-nu-TA-yikh

   and you took {direct object} your sons and {direct object} your daughters whom or which you bore to me and you sacrificed them to them to eat or to devour is it a little from your prostituting from your acts of prostitution

Exegesis

The vav wayyiqtol form vatikhi {וַתִּקְחִ֞י | wat-tiqqôṯ} links this accusation to the preceding context; the repeated direct object marker et {אֶת־ | et} and parallel nouns banayikh {בָּנַיִךְ | ba-na-yikh} and benotayikh {בְּנוֹתַיִךְ | be-no-ta-yikh} intensify the charge; the infinitive construct le-e-khol {לֶאֱכֹל | le-ʾe-khol} serves as a purpose clause for the sacrificial act described by vatizbachim {וַתִּזְבָּחִ֥ים | wat-tiz-ba-ḥîm}; and the chiastic pairing of mittaznutekh {מִתַּזְנוּתָ֥ךְ | mit-taz-nu-tekh} and mittaznutayikh {מִתַּזְנוּתָֽיִךְ | mit-taz-nu-ta-yikh} around the rhetorical question introduced by hameat {הַמְעַט | ham-me-ʿaṭ} heightens the cumulative indictment of spiritual unfaithfulness.