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.