21st Century Bible Hebrew -- all the agentless verbs you could ever want

I mentioned evidence of how the agentless forms play together.  Here it is: Exodus 21:29-31.

כט וְאִם שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם־בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת:

ל אִם־כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יוּשַׁת עָלָיו:

לא אוֹ־בֵן יִגָּח אוֹ־בַת יִגָּח כַּמִּשְׁפָּט הַזֶּה יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ:

In verse 29, a dangerous ox kills somebody; the term huad is a hufal. It’s a legal definition of the ox’s status as “dangerous” because it gored two days in a row. The owner has been given notice of this status by an official source.

The owner doesn’t guard it properly, and it kills somebody so the ox is stoned. This is nifal. It’s the legal sentence imposed (presumably by an earthly court because this is not one of the sins listed in Mishnah Kritot 1:1) to prevent the ox from killing again.

The last word of the verse is yumat, another hufal definition. The owner is “a dead man” according to legal definition BUT this is not listed among the capital crimes so, since there’s no previous legislation that it’s a death penalty case, there’s no mot to go with the yumat.

In verse 30, we have yushat twice. This is qual and it is the imperfect aspect. Since the owner is now legally defined as a “dead man”, you might think he could be liable to the death penalty. In fact, counterintuitively, he is fined. The fine isn’t compensation for the death of whatever the ox gored. It’s redemption for the owner, comparable to paying restitution for a theft.

Verse 31 has the nifal yeaseh. This is another legal ruling. The fine is a dead end. The owner of the ox is not subject to capital punishment. The parents of the dead boy or girl cannot appeal to a court of 23 and get a death penalty, using the grounds that this was not an adult who was responsible for his or her own safety, but a child.

The only agentless binyan missing from this sequence is pual, which has two roles in law. One is that the situation falls short of being eligible for a court case, a less-than-hufal situation. The other is that there is more than one way to fall short of being eligible for a court case.