On New Year's Day

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.