Because of the fragrance of your good ointments, Your name is ointment poured forth; Therefore the virgins love you (Song of Solomon 1:3)
The word for "ointment poured forth" is שֶׁ֖מֶן (shemen) תּוּרַ֣ק (turaq). According to BibleHub, turaq is a feminine verb and shemen is a masculine noun.
Is it correct grammatically?
Languages evolve over time - the writer of Songs was not writing it with the same grammatical understanding as the writer of Daniel and wasn't writing with a grammar in his hand.
The Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament says this:
By "thy ointments," line 3, spices are meant, by which the palace was perfumed; but the fragrance of which, as line 4 says, is surpassed by the fragrance of his name. שׁם (name) and שׁמן (fragrance) form a paranomasia by which the comparison is brought nearer Ecclesiastes 7:1. Both words are elsewhere mas.; but sooner than שׁם, so frequently and universally mas. (although its plur. is שׁמות, but cf. אבות), שׁמן may be used as fem., although a parallel example is wanting (cf. devǎsh, mōr, nōphěth, kěmāh, and the like, which are constantly mas.). Ewald therefore translates שמן תורק as a proper name: "O sweet Salbenduft" Fragrance of Ointment; and Bttcher sees in turǎk a subst. in the sense of "sprinkling" [Spreng-Oel]; but a name like "Rosenoel" [oil of roses] would be more appropriately formed, and a subst. form תורק is, in Heb. at least, unexampled (for neither תּוּגה nor תּוּבל, in the name Tubal-Cain, is parallel). Frst imagines "a province in Palestine where excellent oil was got," called Turak; "Turkish" Rosenl recommends itself, on the contrary, by the fact of its actual existence. Certainly less is hazarded when we regard shěměn, as here treated exceptionally, as fem.; thus, not: ut unguentum nomen tuum effunditur, which, besides, is unsuitable, since one does not empty out or pour out a name; but: unguentum quod effunditur (Hengst., Hahn, and others), an ointment which is taken out of its depository and is sprinkled far and wide, is thy name. The harsh expression שׁמן מוּרק is intentionally avoided; the old Heb. language is not φιλομέτοχος (fond of participles); and, besides, מורק sounds badly with מרק, to rub off, to wash away. Perhaps, also, יוּרק שׁמן is intentionally avoided, because of the collision of the weak sounds n and j. The name Shēm is derived from the verb shāmā, to be high, prominent, remarkable: whence also the name for the heavens (vid., under Psalm 8:2). That attractive charm (lines 2, 3), and this glory (line 4), make him, the praised, an object of general love, line 5, Sol 1:3::
To summarise, the writer of Songs was probably writing at a time when ointment (shemen) could be female and that is where the difficulty of the grammar not matching comes.
