Publicizing the miracle

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- related aspects

Now let’s go back to Genesis 41:43 where I showed that instead of a perfect aspect verb, it uses an aspectless verb.

מב וַיָּ֨סַר פַּרְעֹ֤ה אֶת־טַבַּעְתּוֹ֙ מֵעַ֣ל יָד֔וֹ וַיִּתֵּ֥ן אֹתָ֖הּ עַל־יַ֣ד יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיַּלְבֵּ֤שׁ אֹתוֹ֙ בִּגְדֵי־שֵׁ֔שׁ וַיָּ֛שֶׂם רְבִ֥ד הַזָּהָ֖ב עַל־צַוָּארֽוֹ:

מג וַיַּרְכֵּ֣ב אֹת֗וֹ בְּמִרְכֶּ֤בֶת הַמִּשְׁנֶה֙ אֲשֶׁר־ל֔וֹ וַיִּקְרְא֥וּ לְפָנָ֖יו אַבְרֵ֑ךְ וְנָת֣וֹן אֹת֔וֹ עַ֖ל כָּל־אֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:

It turns out that there is a relationship between these four verb forms that lets them substitute for each other. Aspectless verbs substitute for perfect aspect when necessary, and progressive for imperfect in a very few places. So there’s some strange grammar in Genesis 11:30 about Sarah (or Sarai as she was then) that gave a few rabbis some difficulty.

ל וַתְּהִ֥י שָׂרַ֖י עֲקָרָ֑ה אֵ֥ין לָ֖הּ וָלָֽד:

Sarai must have been barren; she had no children.

Va-t’hi at the start of the verse is the feminine evidentiary epistemic and the evidence should be in narrative past. But v’lo yihyeh is a denial that X will exist in the future. There’s no other grammar to substitute for it, but because imperfect and progressive are related, you can say eyn to give the evidence for deciding that she is barren. 

But in Numbers 5: 21-22 in the laws for the sotah or suspected wife:

כא וְהִשְׁבִּ֨יעַ הַכֹּהֵ֥ן אֶֽת־הָֽאִשָּׁה֘ בִּשְׁבֻעַ֣ת הָֽאָלָה֒ וְאָמַ֤ר הַכֹּהֵן֙ לָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה יִתֵּ֨ן יְהוָֹ֥ה אוֹתָ֛ךְ לְאָלָ֥ה וְלִשְׁבֻעָ֖ה בְּת֣וֹךְ עַמֵּ֑ךְ בְּתֵ֨ת יְהוָֹ֤ה אֶת־יְרֵכֵךְ֙ נֹפֶ֔לֶת וְאֶת־בִּטְנֵ֖ךְ צָבָֽה:

כב וּ֠בָ֠אוּ הַמַּ֨יִם הַֽמְאָֽרְרִ֤ים הָאֵ֨לֶּה֙ בְּֽמֵעַ֔יִךְ לַצְבּ֥וֹת בֶּ֖טֶן וְלַנְפִּ֣ל יָרֵ֑ךְ וְאָֽמְרָ֥ה הָֽאִשָּׁ֖ה אָמֵ֥ן ׀ אָמֵֽן:

The kohen administers to the woman the oath of the alah [subpoena or summons], the kohen says to the woman, the Lord give you to/for an alah and vow among your people; at the time of the Lord putting your thigh falling and your womb wasting

Because this cursing water comes into your innards for wasting your womb and making your thigh fall; the woman says amen amen.

In verse 21 we have nofelet and tsavah, both progressive aspect. In verse 22 they’re in reverse order but it’s latsbot and lanpil.

If we had imperfect in verse 21 it would be a prediction that this would happen, but we mortals don’t know if Gd has condemned this woman and, in fact, at this point she has not yet drunk the waters, and Mishnah Sotah shows there are several things that could happen such that she never does drink.  

This uncertainty about what will happen in the next few minutes also requires that we not use perfect aspect in verse 22. It’s not just that we’re expressing a purpose, we’re envisioning that these things might actually take place, but we can’t use an aspected verb without a wrong implication one way of the other.

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- aspectless verbs

Aspectless verbs refer to things happening, like progressive does, but instead of going with adverbs for place or time, like progressives, some forms of aspectless verbs can be adverbs, with the right prefix.

1.         With a b’ or k’ prefix, and often an object suffix, serves as an adverb of timing, either “at the time of Xing” or “as soon as Xing happened”.

2.         With a l’ prefix, purposive, “for Xing, so that Xing happens”. This uses a different form than the adverbials. The purpose generally is to achieve a state or result relating to the action.

3.         Resultative complement of yakhal, yasaf, or maen.

4.         Commandment to X “on demand” or in response to some situation.

5.         Substitute for an aspected verb, usually perfect aspect, when the aspect would create the wrong impression.

6.         Insulate gam from a verbal expression.

You saw an example of #1 in Genesis 2:4.

Examples of #4 include the Shabbat commandments in Exodus 20:8

ח זָכ֛וֹר אֶת־י֥וֹם הַשַּׁבָּ֖ת לְקַדְּשֽׁוֹ:

Bring to mind the Shabbat day for the purpose of behaving according to its sanctity.

and Deuteronomy 5:12

יב שָׁמ֛וֹר אֶת־י֥וֹם הַשַּׁבָּ֖ת לְקַדְּשׁ֑וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוְּךָ֖ יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹהֶֽיךָ:

Guard the Shabbat day for the purpose of behaving according to its sanctity; as the Lord your Gd commanded you.

Notice also the l’qadsho, #2.

Genesis 37:35 has an example of #3, va-y’maen l’hitnachem.

לה וַיָּקֻ֩מוּ֩ כָל־בָּנָ֨יו וְכָל־בְּנֹתָ֜יו לְנַֽחֲמ֗וֹ וַיְמָאֵן֙ לְהִתְנַחֵ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּֽי־אֵרֵ֧ד אֶל־בְּנִ֛י אָבֵ֖ל שְׁאֹ֑לָה וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ אֹת֖וֹ אָבִֽיו:

All his sons and daughters rose up to comfort him, he refused being comforted, he said I am in a situation of going down to my son mourning to Sheol; his father must have bewept him.

Here is an example of #5, Yosef taking office from Pharaoh.

מב וַיָּ֨סַר פַּרְעֹ֤ה אֶת־טַבַּעְתּוֹ֙ מֵעַ֣ל יָד֔וֹ וַיִּתֵּ֥ן אֹתָ֖הּ עַל־יַ֣ד יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיַּלְבֵּ֤שׁ אֹתוֹ֙ בִּגְדֵי־שֵׁ֔שׁ וַיָּ֛שֶׂם רְבִ֥ד הַזָּהָ֖ב עַל־צַוָּארֽוֹ:

מג וַיַּרְכֵּ֣ב אֹת֗וֹ בְּמִרְכֶּ֤בֶת הַמִּשְׁנֶה֙ אֲשֶׁר־ל֔וֹ וַיִּקְרְא֥וּ לְפָנָ֖יו אַבְרֵ֑ךְ וְנָת֣וֹן אֹת֔וֹ עַ֖ל כָּל־אֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:

Paro put off his ring from his hand, he put it onto the hand of Yosef; he dressed him in linen garments, he put a gold r’ved on his neck.

He made him ride in the second [best] chariot that he had, they called avrekh before him; so giving him over all the land of Egypt.

Vav plus natan (perfect aspect) in this situation would be an oblique modality, something unbelievable without the foregoing list of actions. But there’s no necessary connection between those and v’naton like there is between Avraham’s wealth overwhelming the land in Genesis so that he and Lot split up. So we get an aspectless verb, suggesting a connection between that and perfect aspect that I have seen borne out in other places.

Item #6 is an issue of emphasis. Gam can often be translated “when it comes to X”, whether X is a noun or an action. An action will be expressed with an aspectless verb. Here’s an example that I confused with something else until I realized there was a gam in there, Exodus 2:19.

יט וַתֹּאמַ֕רְן ָ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י הִצִּילָ֖נוּ מִיַּ֣ד הָֽרֹעִ֑ים וְגַם־דָּלֹ֤ה דָלָה֙ לָ֔נוּ וַיַּ֖שְׁקְ אֶת־הַצֹּֽאן:

They said: an Egyptian man saved us from the shepherds; when it came to drawing [water], he drew for us, he must have watered the flock.

Normally the daughters would have drawn the water and they are emphasizing that Mosheh did this for them. They could have said va-yidleh but they wanted gam for emphasis, so they had to use something else. Then dalah is strictly an action verb, so they insert aspectless daloh before it to insulate gam.

Another is Genesis 46:4:

ד אָֽנֹכִ֗י אֵרֵ֤ד עִמְּךָ֙ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה וְאָֽנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ גַם־עָלֹ֑ה וְיוֹסֵ֕ף יָשִׁ֥ית יָד֖וֹ עַל־עֵינֶֽיךָ:

I will go down with you to Egypt, and I shall bring you up when it comes to going up; Yosef shall set his hand on your eyes.

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- progressive aspect examples

Progressive aspect accounts for many other uses of verbs but not all.

1.         action in progress, the link to imperfect aspect used for a process.

2.         the sense in which an imperfect tense is used, that is, an action that was ongoing when something else happened.

3.         descriptive.

4.         immediate future, “about to X”.

5.         immediate past “has [just] X’d”.

6.         habitual and therefore repeated.

7.         locative situations.

8.         X is “still” happening.

You already saw #3 in Genesis 2:10: the rivers yotse me-eden.

Examples of #4 are all over Deuteronomy, such as 32:49.

מט עֲלֵ֡ה אֶל־הַר֩ הָֽעֲבָרִ֨ים הַזֶּ֜ה הַר־נְב֗וֹ אֲשֶׁר֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מוֹאָ֔ב אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־פְּנֵ֣י יְרֵח֑וֹ וּרְאֵה֙ אֶת־אֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן אֲשֶׁ֨ר אֲנִ֥י נֹתֵ֛ן לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לַֽאֲחֻזָּֽה:

Go up to this Mountain of the Ford, Mount N’vo, which is in the land of Moav that is before Y’richo; see the Land of K’naan that I am about to give to the B’ney Yisrael for an achuzah.

Noten is progressive masculine singular. Gd is telling Mosheh to go take a look at the land he will never live in. which Gd is about to give to the Israelites.

Genesis 18:1-2 hit up several of these functions.

א וַיֵּרָ֤א אֵלָיו֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּאֵֽלֹנֵ֖י מַמְרֵ֑א וְה֛וּא יֹשֵׁ֥ב פֶּֽתַֽח־הָאֹ֖הֶל כְּחֹ֥ם הַיּֽוֹם:

ב וַיִּשָּׂ֤א עֵינָיו֙ וַיַּ֔רְא וְהִנֵּה֙ שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים נִצָּבִ֖ים עָלָ֑יו וַיַּ֗רְא וַיָּ֤רָץ לִקְרָאתָם֙ מִפֶּ֣תַֽח הָאֹ֔הֶל וַיִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ אָֽרְצָה:

The Lord must have manifested to him at Eloney Mamre -- he was sitting at the door of his tent (#7) as of the heat of the day --

For he looked up and must have perceived that here were three men standing (#2) over him; he must have perceived, for he ran to meet them from the door of the tent, he bowed to the earth.

Later in verse 22 we have:

כב וַיִּפְנ֤וּ מִשָּׁם֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים וַיֵּֽלְכ֖וּ סְדֹ֑מָה וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם עוֹדֶ֥נּוּ עֹמֵ֖ד לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֹֽה:

The men turned from there and went toward S’dom; but Avraham was still standing (#8) before the Lord.

And finally, there’s Genesis 45:9 which can be understood in a couple of ways.

ט וַיְדַבֵּר֙ שַׂ֣ר הַמַּשְׁקִ֔ים אֶת־פַּרְעֹ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר אֶת־חֲטָאַ֕י אֲנִ֖י מַזְכִּ֥יר הַיּֽוֹם:

The chief butler spoke with Paro saying: My sins I mazkir today.

The chief butler has just heard Pharaoh tell about his dream and he says “I just remembered my sins today.” The verb could be usage #5.

But it could also be usage #4, which would be “I am about to bring up the subject of my sins today.” Pharaoh could stop him, but he doesn’t, and after two years, the butler pays off Yosef for the interpretation of his dream.

Finally, usage #6 is not only in Torah but also in the Passover Haggadah, Exodus 13:15.

טו וַיְהִ֗י כִּֽי־הִקְשָׁ֣ה פַרְעֹה֘ לְשַׁלְּחֵ֒נוּ֒ וַיַּֽהֲרֹ֨ג יְהוָֹ֤ה כָּל־בְּכוֹר֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם מִבְּכֹ֥ר אָדָ֖ם וְעַד־בְּכ֣וֹר בְּהֵמָ֑ה עַל־כֵּן֩ אֲנִ֨י זֹבֵ֜חַ לַֽיהֹוָ֗ה כָּל־פֶּ֤טֶר רֶ֨חֶם֙ הַזְּכָרִ֔ים וְכָל־בְּכ֥וֹר בָּנַ֖י אֶפְדֶּֽה:

It must have been upon Paro’s hardening [his heart] for sending us, that the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of man to the firstborn of domestic animals; therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every opening of the womb the males; but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.

This is the answer to the son who only asks “what is this”, one of the four sons discussed in the Haggadah. Al-ken ani zoveach is the answer because the child is old enough to have seen the observance of more than one Passover but he hasn’t been able to remember what it’s all about.

So yes, you have to know the progressive, but it’s not nearly as important in Torah as present tense is in Mishnaic or modern Hebrew, maybe 200 out of the 80,000 words of Torah. And you can see why it’s uncommon when most of the narrative action is based on the imperfect as narrative past, and so many of the commandments are in perfect aspect. That’s why I went long on this post. Now it’s out of your way.

I'm just saying... what we don't know.

Usually you end that statement, "can kill us" but I'm going to rewrite it to "can make us say stupid things."

Are you living probiotic? Are you also drinking almond milk to get rid of veal and dairy farming?

Well, a review of almond milks shows that each and every one of them contains cane sugar. You know.  That refined sugar that contributes to obesity and Type II diabetes. Every single one of them also contains emulsifiers, which are also coming under scrutiny for causing obesity and therefore heart problems and diabetes.

Plus the carbon footprint. Almond trees do not produce almond milk. The almonds have to be harvested, the shells taken off mechanically, they get transported to a factory that runs probably on petroleum (I've never seen the data on that, tell me if you know of one that runs off solar or geothermic or whatever), and then the packages use petroleum products (such as wax) and get transported to stores.

Now for the reason I brought up probiotic. We're all supposed to be going probiotic, mostly with yogurt. Which is made from cow's milk. It's the specific microorganisms that turn the milk into yogurt that makes it probiotic. You have to add yogurt probiotics to almond milk to get a probiotic yogurt. But it's still  not as good as cow's milk yogurt for two reasons.

One, and this is a money reason, is you can't use the end of a batch to make more almond milk yogurt. You can do this with cow's milk yogurt and it will save you $$$$$$$$$.

Two, and this is partly a money reason, is you have to add a thickener. With cow's milk yogurt, if you keep your milk at the right heat long enough, your yogurt will come out thick. Been there, done that, it's in the instructions for the packet you use to make your first batch. Commercial yogurt makers aren't willing to spent that extra time; they add food starch, gelatin, or other crap to make the yogurt thick.

Well, food starch makes my mouth dry and gelatin is a different problem. You can't buy just any gelatin. If you keep kosher or halal, you need something that is certified kosher or you need to know if your imam will accept kosher as halal. If you are vegan, you need to realize that somewhere in the past of your gelatin, there was a cow.

And if you are drinking almond milk to defeat the dairy industry, you have to bite the bullet and realize that your gelatin could have come from a dairy cow that was too old to calve and therefore too old to give milk. So the owner sold her to be rendered down for gelatin, among other products. If you get rid of dairy farming, you have to rely on the beef meat industry to get your gelatin. They can call it grass-fed if they want, all that means is the cow grazes instead of living in a feed lot that is the bovine equivalent of producing foie gras.

Not to mention that the person who wrote the article has to make her own almond milk. Every attempt to make yogurt from store-bought has failed. It's probably the stuff the manufacturers put in the almond milk. Imagine all the time and $$$$$$$$$$$$$ she has had to spend buying and milking raw almonds to support her kids' yogurt habit, simply because she got on her high horse about the dairy industry.

And now the really big issue about destroying the dairy industry. Some women are unable to nurse their babies. They don't lactate properly. Or they have to work -- you know perfectly well that some American businesses do not give women proper facilities or breaks to nurse their babies.

Well, there's formula, but soy formula has been implicated in promoting peanut allergy, and we all remember the poisoned  baby formula some years back. Plus one of the reasons people hate Nestle is they have been promoting use of their formula in countries that have limited access to clean water. You should not be feeding your baby formula unless it is made with clean water. So formula is not necessarily the solution.

Goat milk is not the solution either. A human baby cannot get the nutrients it needs from goat milk. And what do you do with all the baby goats that are born just so the nanny will keep giving milk? So you're right back into something that people hate about dairy farming in general.

So do you let human babies die if they live in a cow's milk desert?

Almond farming has sustainability problems, including the collapse of bee colonies and the difficulties of growing trees at all as global temperatures rise. Almond prices have more than doubled in only 4 years. So the affordability of buying enough almonds to support a heavy yogurt habit has to be weighed against increases in housing, energy, health care and yes, other food items.

You squeeze the balloon in here and it bulges out there. People who don't do their homework don't realize this, they just focus on one pixel out of the whole picture. And then they make stupid claims and don't understand why industry ignores them.

I'm just saying...

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- perfect aspect examples 2

The uses of perfect aspect are as follows.

1.         normally in SV order, it bounds the start and end of narratives, and is used for most cases of the pluperfect.

2.         vav plus perfect in VS order, especially when the subject is expressed, may be an oblique modality, a term I will explain later.

3.         vav plus perfect in the 2nd singular or plural in commandments are the required details in carrying out the commandment.

4.         in 3rd person, in ritual, it expresses actions that must be completed for the ritual to be acceptable, hurtsah. These are the details according to which one must judge in a k’lal u-prat [u-k’lal] structure.

5.         In a separate clause and following the ki or im plus imperfect clause in a tort law, something that has to go to completion before sanctions apply.

6.         as part of a parallel structure, the following part of which is in imperfect, in poetry and prophecy.

7.         in a separate clause and following an imperfect aspect verb which indicates a future action, indicating something that must go to completion before the future action takes place.

You saw an example of usage #5 in Exodus 22:4.

An example of #7 is Leviticus 9:4.

ד כְּתֹֽנֶת־בַּ֨ד קֹ֜דֶשׁ יִלְבָּ֗שׁ וּמִֽכְנְסֵי־בַד֘ יִהְי֣וּ עַל־בְּשָׂרוֹ֒ וּבְאַבְנֵ֥ט בַּד֙ יַחְגֹּ֔ר וּבְמִצְנֶ֥פֶת בַּ֖ד יִצְנֹ֑ף בִּגְדֵי־קֹ֣דֶשׁ הֵ֔ם וְרָחַ֥ץ בַּמַּ֛יִם אֶת־בְּשָׂר֖וֹ וּלְבֵשָֽׁם:

He [by definition] puts on a holy linen coat, linen trousers are on his flesh, he girds himself with a linen belt, and mitres himself with a linen mitre; these are the holy garments, he washes his flesh in water and puts them on.

The priest has to be wearing this clothing when conducting a ritual: yilbash.  BUT before any of that he has to complete the action of washing in water: rachats, then he puts them on l’vesham.

This has been called the perfect used in a future tense but that’s not what it is. Priests getting dressed happens all the time; they don’t sleep in the linen clothing and they don’t wear it while taking out the ashes of a sacrifice beyond the camp for deposit. They have to put it on every time they do a sacrifice. BUT before they do that, they have to completely wash in water.

This is not an issue of cleanliness. He has to put the linen trousers on his skin. He washes to get things off his skin that would intervene between him and the garments. On the Fact-Checking page, I talk about the “cleanness” issue, which is actually a problem of translation that starts with the horrible Septuagint. The idea that hygiene was familiar to the people of the Torah and Mishnah periods is a case of Historian’s Fallacy. Don’t go there.

DIY -- gluten free

So I have some new family members, thanks to a wedding, and some of them are gluten sensitive.

For T-day I undertook to bake gluten free cookies. I asked for flour recommendations and used the one I could get most of, Bob's Red Mill, since I have used lots of Bob's other products in the past. Like, I use their Dark Rye flour to make sourdough starter for all my sourdough bread.

I used five traditional recipes, three of which I had never made before. One, the madeleines, I had made for my nieces before so it was a good test of whether the recipe worked out. The answer was, the texture seemed a little different, but it tasted OK. The others were: shortbread; snowballs aka Mexican wedding cookies or Russian tea cookies; sand tarts, which are Amish, and I used a family recipe; and Viennese honey cookies, a recipe that probably came from my ancient Jewish festival cookbook.

So we got to talking about pasta; gluten free pasta is supposed to be gummy. I've heard the same complaint about Passover noodles (which are mostly egg so Passover noodle soup is actually more like egg drop soup, but it might also happen if they have potato starch in them) and I had the same experience with commercial dairy free English muffins, but not with my scratch homemade English muffins made without milk.

I still had some of the flour left and made a half batch this morning, then cooked it with chicken cacciatore. Just-cooked, the noodles are gummy.  Put into the sauce, they turn out very soft. That's sad. If I had used xanthan gum for a binder, instead of the egg which is in the normal recipe, it might have been different. I'm not going there. My heart goes out to you who can't tolerate normal pasta.

Now, if you are Jewish, you must be wondering if this is ok for Passover. The answer seems to be that matzah has to be made out of a grain that CAN become leavened, which applies to the five standard grains. Of those five, oat has the lowest gluten, and it can be heated into inactivity. But that makes it impossible to leaven so you're going around in circles. There seems to be a new breed of oats so low in gluten it really doesn't matter, and that is good enough for the requirements of the seder -- but only when there's a medically diagnosed health risk. If gluten-free is a personal lifestyle choice with no underlying medical problems, you are still responsible for eating normal matzo.
https://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/1814200/jewish/Can-I-Have-Gluten-Free-Matzah-on-Passover.htm

So cookies, yes. Pasta, not really. Pie dough -- my new nephew wasn't happy with what he turned out. Cake, IDK. Some of these things, there's probably zero health complications if you can't get them.

Chemistry is chemistry. Mind over matter will not change how molecules interact; if it could, people with Crohn's and similar disorders could just ignore all the horrible effects on their bodies of eating gluten and we wouldn't be here. Trying to manufacture a substitute that behaves exactly like what you're replacing probably will chew up a huge amount of carbon footprint in development. Unless it's necessary for survival, I would say just fuhgeddabout gluten free pasta. There is plenty of great tasting food out there anyway.

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- perfect aspect examples

The uses of perfect aspect are as follows.

1.         normally in SV order, it bounds the start and end of narratives.

2.         vav plus perfect in VS order, especially when the subject is expressed, may be an oblique modality, a term I will explain later.

3.         vav plus perfect in the 2nd singular or plural in commandments are the required details in carrying out the commandment.

4.         in 3rd person, in ritual, it expresses actions that must be completed for the ritual to be acceptable, hurtsah.

5.         In a separate clause and following the ki or im plus imperfect clause in a tort law, something that has to go to completion before sanctions apply.

6.         as part of a parallel structure, the following part of which is in imperfect, in poetry and prophecy.

7.         in a separate clause and following an imperfect aspect verb which indicates a future or repeated action, indicating something that must go to completion before the imperfect verb takes place.

You saw an example of usage #1 in Genesis 4:1:

ד  א וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע אֶת־חַוָּ֣ה אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וַתַּ֨הַר֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־קַ֔יִן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־יְהוָֹֽה:

Yada is the 3^rd masculine singular perfect aspect of yada, “to know”. It’s the opening of the narrative about Qain and his descendant Lemekh.

I’m going to skip #2, as I said, until I discuss the whole field of modality.

The examples of 2^nd and 3^rd person commandments are legion. Possibly one of the most famous examples of #3 for Jews is:

ה וְאָ֣הַבְתָּ֔ אֵ֖ת יְהוָֹ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ בְּכָל־לְבָֽבְךָ֥ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ֖ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶֽךָ:

Love the Lord your Gd: with all your heart and with all your soul, and through all your means.

An example of #4 is Leviticus 1:2-9, with its klal envelope.

ב דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם אָדָ֗ם כִּֽי־יַקְרִ֥יב מִכֶּ֛ם קָרְבָּ֖ן לַֽיהוָֹ֑ה מִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֗ה מִן־הַבָּקָר֙ וּמִן־הַצֹּ֔אן תַּקְרִ֖יבוּ אֶת־קָרְבַּנְכֶֽם:

ג אִם־עֹלָ֤ה קָרְבָּנוֹ֙ מִן־הַבָּקָ֔ר זָכָ֥ר תָּמִ֖ים יַקְרִיבֶ֑נּוּ אֶל־פֶּ֜תַח אֹ֤הֶל מוֹעֵד֙ יַקְרִ֣יב אֹת֔וֹ לִרְצֹנ֖וֹ לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֹֽה:

ד וְסָמַ֣ךְ יָד֔וֹ עַ֖ל רֹ֣אשׁ הָֽעֹלָ֑ה וְנִרְצָ֥ה ל֖וֹ לְכַפֵּ֥ר עָלָֽיו:

ה וְשָׁחַ֛ט אֶת־בֶּ֥ן הַבָּקָ֖ר לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָֹ֑ה וְ֠הִקְרִ֠יבוּ בְּנֵ֨י אַֽהֲרֹ֤ן הַכֹּֽהֲנִים֙ אֶת־הַדָּ֔ם וְזָֽרְק֨וּ אֶת־הַדָּ֤ם עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֨חַ֙ סָבִ֔יב אֲשֶׁר־פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד:

ו וְהִפְשִׁ֖יט אֶת־הָֽעֹלָ֑ה וְנִתַּ֥ח אֹתָ֖הּ לִנְתָחֶֽיהָ:

ז וְ֠נָֽתְנ֠וּ בְּנֵ֨י אַֽהֲרֹ֧ן הַכֹּהֵ֛ן אֵ֖שׁ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ וְעָֽרְכ֥וּ עֵצִ֖ים עַל־הָאֵֽשׁ:

ח וְעָֽרְכ֗וּ בְּנֵ֤י אַֽהֲרֹן֙ הַכֹּ֣הֲנִ֔ים אֵ֚ת הַנְּתָחִ֔ים אֶת־הָרֹ֖אשׁ וְאֶת־הַפָּ֑דֶר עַל־הָֽעֵצִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־הָאֵ֔שׁ אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:

ט וְקִרְבּ֥וֹ וּכְרָעָ֖יו יִרְחַ֣ץ בַּמָּ֑יִם וְהִקְטִ֨יר הַכֹּהֵ֤ן אֶת־הַכֹּל֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה עֹלָ֛ה אִשֵּׁ֥ה רֵֽיחַ־נִיח֖וֹחַ לַֽיהוָֹֽה:

Verses 2 and 3 define the type of sacrifice with the imperfect verbs. Verses 4-9 use a series of perfect aspect verbs to show how this sacrifice has to be processed. Each of these steps has to be completed correctly (documentation in Mishnah) for the sacrifice to be hurtsah, a term I will come back to later.

Notice that in verse 5 it has v’shachat and the next perfect aspect verb switches to the priests. Up to that point in verse 5 we have things incumbent on an individual bringing an olah. The rest of the ritual, the priests have to perform.

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- imperfect aspect examples part 5

The uses of imperfect aspect are as follows.

1.                  vav plus imperfect in VS order is “narrative past”, used within an episode to track the progress of the plot.

2.                  vav plus subject plus imperfect is a relative or coordinate clause.

3.                  without vav in SV order is possibly a true future tense usage.

4.                  without vav may also be an imperfect of process; this first turns up in Leviticus and may be a clue to the relationship between imperfect and progressive aspects.

5.                  vav plus imperfect in the 2nd singular or plural define the generalized or definitional envelope of commandments or refer to a known cultural feature.

6.                  in the 3rd person, in portions about sacrificial ritual, imperfect provides the framework for the ritual actions like the generalization envelope for a k’lal u-prat [u-k’lal] structure.

7.                  Preceded by ki or im is the “if” clause in a law, usually a tort. Again, this is an envelope to a klal uprat [uklal] structure.

8.                  part of a parallel structure in poetry and prophecy following a perfect verb as a parallel. They will not use the same verb root and sometimes not the same binyan.

Number 8 is probably more common in Psalms and the prophetic books, but here’s one example in Genesis 49:9.

ט גּ֤וּר אַרְיֵה֙ יְהוּדָ֔ה מִטֶּ֖רֶף בְּנִ֣י עָלִ֑יתָ כָּרַ֨ע רָבַ֧ץ כְּאַרְיֵ֛ה וּכְלָבִ֖יא מִ֥י יְקִימֶֽנּוּ:

Yehudah is a lion cub, from the carcass, my son, you rose up; you stooped crouching like a lion and like a lioness who will raise him?

So alita and ravats in this verse are perfect aspect, and the final imperfect aspect coordinates with alita but contrasts with the other two verbs in the same clause – notice there’s an etnach in there.

This is an actual future use of imperfect aspect in the correct SV order: mi is the subject of y’qimenu.

Aside from this, the “permissive/prescriptive” is based on imperfect, mostly as tokhelu which you saw in the Gan Eden narrative.

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- imperfect examples, part 4

The uses of imperfect aspect are as follows.

1.                  vav plus imperfect in VS order is “narrative past”, used within an episode to track the progress of the plot.

2.                  vav plus subject plus imperfect is a relative or coordinate clause.

3.                  without vav in SV order is possibly a true future tense usage.

4.                  without vav may also be an imperfect of process; this first turns up in Leviticus and may be a clue to the relationship between imperfect and progressive aspects.

5.                  vav plus imperfect in the 2nd singular or plural define the generalized or definitional envelope of commandments or refer to a known cultural feature.

6.                  in the 3rd person, in portions about sacrificial ritual, imperfect provides the framework for the ritual actions like the generalization envelope for a k’lal u-prat [u-k’lal] structure.

7.                  Preceded by ki or im is the “if” clause in a law, usually a tort. Again, this is an envelope to a klal uprat [uklal] structure.

8.                  part of a parallel structure in poetry and prophecy following a perfect verb as a parallel. They will not use the same verb root and sometimes not the same binyan.

Number 7 is possibly the most important use of imperfect aspect in the legal section. Here is Exodus 22:4.  See how the imperfect aspect with ki is followed by perfect aspect verbs. If a case does not match the definition in imperfect, there’s no case to try. If the individual elements that are expressed in perfect aspect don’t apply, the defendant cannot be convicted.

ד כִּ֤י יַבְעֶר־אִישׁ֙ שָׂדֶ֣ה אוֹ־כֶ֔רֶם וְשִׁלַּח֙ אֶת־בְּעִירֹ֔ה וּבִעֵ֖ר בִּשְׂדֵ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר מֵיטַ֥ב שָׂדֵ֛הוּ וּמֵיטַ֥ב כַּרְמ֖וֹ יְשַׁלֵּֽם:

If a man lights a fire in a field or vineyard, and the fire gets out and burns in another [person’s] field: From the best of his field or the best of his vineyard he pays.

People used to burn off weeds; that’s the ki yaver.  The v’shilach and u-vier in the middle are perfect aspect. The final yishalem is another imperfect aspect.

So the definition of the tort is a field on fire; what the court can try is whether that fire got out and burned up somebody else’s property; if the firestarter is convicted, the definition of the damages he pays is funded by his best land.

The first imperfect aspect verb is a generalization, something that people ordinarily do for neutral reasons. The perfect aspect verbs are specifications of possible consequences and I will come back to them in another post about binyan use. The final imperfect aspect is another generalization: the firestarter has to pay damages if he is convicted. Notice that this is the only sanction of what happened; nobody is allowed to come burn his field in revenge. That’s the lesson of the imperfect klal at the end.

This is a structure formally identfied about 100 CE, attributed to Rabbi Yishmael and documented in the introduction to Midrash Halakhah Sifre (on Leviticus). It’s called klal u-prat u-klal and what it means is if anything else happens except the fire burning somebody else’s field or harvested produce, there’s no court case. That includes limiting the sanctions to paying a fine.  

The klal u-prat [u-klal] is a fundamental structure of Torah, even in the narratives, except that narratives may reverse things and have the first or last verses in perfect aspect. The narrative verbs will tend to be in something called “narrative past”, which is an imperfect verb with a vav prefix. All narratives are past to the narrator, but to the characters in them, they are incomplete until the denouement of the narrative is reached. Neat, huh?

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- imperfect examples, part 3

The uses of imperfect aspect are as follows.

1.                  vav plus imperfect in VS order is “narrative past”, used within an episode to track the progress of the plot.

2.                  vav plus subject plus imperfect is a relative or coordinate clause.

3.                  without vav in SV order is possibly a true future tense usage.

4.                  without vav may also be an imperfect of process; this first turns up in Leviticus and may be a clue to the relationship between imperfect and progressive aspects.

5.                  vav plus imperfect in the 2nd singular or plural define the generalized or definitional envelope of commandments or refer to a known cultural feature.

6.                  in the 3rd person, in portions about sacrificial ritual, imperfect provides the framework for the ritual actions like the generalization envelope for a k’lal u-prat [u-k’lal] structure.

7.                  Preceded by ki or im is the “if” clause in a law, usually a tort. Again, this is an envelope to a klal uprat [uklal] structure.

8.                  part of a parallel structure in poetry and prophecy following a perfect verb as a parallel. They will not use the same verb root and sometimes not the same binyan.

We’re up to #6, rituals.  Imperfect aspect commandments in 3^rd person usually are followed by perfect aspect verbs. The imperfect aspect verbs are about an action that happens to a specific sacrifice: yaqriv/u, taqriv.

The earliest of these are Leviticus 1:1-3. 

א  א וַיִּקְרָ֖א אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר יְהוָֹה֙ אֵלָ֔יו מֵאֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר:

ב דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם אָדָ֗ם כִּֽי־יַקְרִ֥יב מִכֶּ֛ם קָרְבָּ֖ן לַֽיהוָֹ֑ה מִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֗ה מִן־הַבָּקָר֙ וּמִן־הַצֹּ֔אן תַּקְרִ֖יבוּ אֶת־קָרְבַּנְכֶֽם:

ג אִם־עֹלָ֤ה קָרְבָּנוֹ֙ מִן־הַבָּקָ֔ר זָכָ֥ר תָּמִ֖ים יַקְרִיבֶ֑נּוּ אֶל־פֶּ֜תַח אֹ֤הֶל מוֹעֵד֙ יַקְרִ֣יב אֹת֔וֹ לִרְצֹנ֖וֹ לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֹֽה:

He called to Mosheh; the Lord spoke to him from the tent of notice saying

Speak to the Israelites and say to them The man among you in the situation of offering a qorban to the Lord -- bring your qorbans from the domestic animals, from the cattle or from the flocks --

If his qorban is a whole offering from the cattle, a perfect male he offers; at the door of the tent of notice he offers it for its acceptance, before the Lord.

Verse 3 defines this offering as an olah so it has to be performed in the same way as the tamid in Exodus 29:38-42 which is also called olah. 

The ki-yaqriv phrase with the hyphen is crucial here. That shows this is not an “if” or a “when” statement. We’re already past the “if” or “when”, we already decided that this is an offering. Now we’re up to how it has to be processed. How it has to be processed depends on what kind of offering it is. Verse 3 defines it as an olah, defines that he has to bring an unblemished male, defines that he has to bring it to the door of the tabernacle (not perform it somewhere out in the camp), l’r’tsono for the purpose of accepting it at his hands.

It’s important that these are all definitions, the klal. A Jewish court can’t start a case unless the klal applies. But it can’t convict somebody on the klal, only on the prat, the details which are probably in perfect aspect. This is crucial in Exodus 21-22.

What this means for offerings is that what the individual does when bringing a sacrifice is not punishable. Until his offering meets the definition, which starts with min-ha-behemah in verse 2, what he does is not defined as bringing a sacrifice. Fix your mind on seeing imperfect as a definition for whether a case exists, and perfect aspect as an action that a court can rule on, and you will see how few cases came into court about sacrifices.