_When they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against
Jerusalem._
Such is the translation in our version, a sense which can in no way be
extorted from the words of the text, as every Hebraist must be well aware.
The Jew, by inserting the relative _who_, as understood after the word
Judah, renders the passage thus,
_And also upon Judah, who shall be in the siege against Jerusalem._
This is certainly no violation of the text, as the relative pronoun is
often understood in Hebrew. But still I hold it to be a rule not to insert
a relative unless the sense requires it, and I see no such necessity here,
as either of the preceding nominatives, namely, _the burden of the
prophecy_, or _the cup of trembling_, may govern the verb _shall be_, and
thus we have, as I have rendered it, _and also upon Judah it shall be, in
the __ siege against Jerusalem_; by which I understand _the burden shall_
be upon Judah also.