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?