21st Century Bible Hebrew -- duplicate unconditional

And there is the grammatical counterpart to mot tamut, a “duplicate unconditional.”

When you have the aspectless verb followed by the same verb root and binyan in a perfect aspect, you are not looking at a conditional situation. You are looking at an absolute situation.

An example would be Genesis 27:30.

וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר כִּלָּה יִצְחָק לְבָרֵךְ אֶת־יַעֲקֹב וַיְהִי אַךְ יָצֹא יָצָא יַעֲקֹב מֵאֵת פְּנֵי יִצְחָק אָבִיו וְעֵשָׂו אָחִיו בָּא מִצֵּידוֹ:

It must have been as soon as Yitschaq finished blessing Yaaqov, it must have been just as Yaaqov absolutely left the presence of Yitschaq his father, Esav his brother just coming from his hunting.

I translated ba as progressive, “just then” instead of perfective, “finished coming”. The whole verse is about two things happening at the same instant, with some real narrative tension going on.

This is unusual. An evidentiary epistemic like va-y’hi is normally followed by a narrative past, although  sometimes there is intervening material. An example of a delayed narrative past is Genesis 14:1-10 where there’s a mini-sidebar from verses 2 to 6 inclusive and verse 7 opens with the narrative past. The progressive ba may be a substitute, the way eyn substitutes for imperfect in the verse about Sarai not having children that I already discussed.

The second evidentiary epistemic is followed by the duplicate conditional.

My claim is that the duplicate conditional invokes the law, but duplicate unconditional cuts off legal consequences. How does that work here?

Notice that they escape the situation where Esav could have killed Yaaqov right then and there. Since Yitschaq was blind, there would be no witnesses to this killing, and since there was no enmity between the brothers before, it would have been only manslaughter. Yaaqov would still be dead, and Esav would have to flee to a city of refuge – and there were none at the time, a link between Esav and Qain.

Some relative would have been responsible for hunting down Esav. Who would do such a thing? What about Yishmael? But the next thing we learn is that Esav marries a daughter of Yishmael, so the old man is out of the loop for avenging his half-nephew on his son-in-law. Torah eliminates all these issues with a two-word phrase pointing out that they never mattered.

Another good example is from the Yosef story, Genesis 40:15. When Yosef is talking to the chief butler before interpreting his dream, Yosef says this:

כִּֽי־גֻנֹּ֣ב גֻּנַּ֔בְתִּי מֵאֶ֖רֶץ הָֽעִבְרִ֑ים וְגַם־פֹּה֙ לֹֽא־עָשִׂ֣יתִי מְא֔וּמָה כִּֽי־שָׂמ֥וּ אֹתִ֖י בַּבּֽוֹר:

My status is having been stolen from the land of the Hebrews; also here I didn’t do anything to result in being put into the pit.

That’s a duplicate unconditional using the pual. In narratives, pual is one step before the denouement, as with the finishing of heaven and earth, immediately followed by the real denouement, creation of Shabbat. In legal situations, pual is one step before hufal, a legal definition like yumat allowing an execution if reached by due process. With pual there are still issues to resolve before legal action can be taken.

In this case, there are multiple ways that Yosef could have become a slave. One is to commit a theft of property that he could not pay off. When the court determines that you are a thief, you have to make restitution in one lump sum. If you can’t, the court can take out an exclusive services contract on you in the value of the theft, and you have to work it off unless the other party to the contract forgives your debt to him.

Another possibility is Yosef taking out the contract on himself for some reason. As an adult (he was 17 at the time), he had that right.

Finally, there’s the possibility that somebody kidnapped Yosef so as to sell him into slavery. This is a capital crime in Judaism.

At the end of the verse, when Yosef says “and here too I didn’t do anything wrong,” he’s denying being a thief so his being in the pit is not the step before selling him to pay restitution.

But before that, he uses a duplicate unconditional in pual to say “don’t get wrapped around the axles trying to convict anybody of kidnapping me. I don’t have the witnesses necessary to try a capital crime. We have bigger fish to fry; let’s be about it.”

While writing Narrating the Torah, wherever I came across a duplicate unconditional, I stopped to analyze what laws it would cut off. And it worked every time, although I had to do some legal research to get there. Its use suggests two things.

One comes directly from Olrik’s principles: Genesis is a heroic saga about ancestors who provide examples of cultural behavior. The other is that Genesis is about patriarchal law as it existed before the Egyptian Oppression, which occurred between 1700 and 1628 BCE.

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- two important aspectless verb structures

Now I can talk about an important structure in Biblical Hebrew which you saw in the Garden of Eden story, Genesis 2:13:

וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת:

Mot yumat appears a lot in Leviticus 20 in a list of capital crimes. I already said that in the Genesis story, it introduces an expectation that Gd will follow due process and not kill Adam and Chavvah unless He has the right evidence. This is also true of mot yumat; a court cannot execute somebody without following due process.

The grammar is:

Aspectless verb plus imperfect aspect verb from the same root and binyan.

The aspectless verb is used here as a commandment. As with zakhor and shamor, this is an “upon demand” commandment. The laws of Shabbat also apply to holy days and so it’s not just a simple schedule; intercalating the year moves the holy days. So any time an aspectless verb is used as a commandment, it’s “on demand”.

BUT the complement identifies when it’s legal to carry out the demand. In the case of mot tamut in Genesis, Gd says when it’s legal. You don’t get anything more “on demand” than that.

In the case of yumat other grammar is involved. Remember a few lessons back when I was talking about the perfect aspect verbs for a sacrifice, and I said that they define when the sacrifice is hurtsah and I said I was going to say more about that later. Here it is.

Hurtsah and yumat are from the hufal binyan. In legal formulations, this binyan says that a legal definition has been met. (It says something else in narratives but I’ll talk about that later.)

So in the case of mot yumat, the legal definition of yumat has been met and, in Narrating the Torah, I define it as meaning “a dead man”. This is stronger than ish mavet in Kings I 2:26 for Evyatar the priest; he has displeased Shlomo for trying to crown Adoniyahu. Yumat means somebody actually condemned by a court – through due process.  Because there’s a condition on carrying out the commandment – meeting due process – I call this the duplicate conditional. 

The duplicate conditional also shows up in narratives, probably the best example being Genesis 37:8. Yosef has just told his brothers his first dream and they say:

ח וַיֹּ֤אמְרוּ לוֹ֙ אֶחָ֔יו הֲמָלֹ֤ךְ תִּמְלֹךְ֙ עָלֵ֔ינוּ אִם־מָשׁ֥וֹל תִּמְשֹׁ֖ל בָּ֑נוּ וַיּוֹסִ֤פוּ עוֹד֙ שְׂנֹ֣א אֹת֔וֹ עַל־חֲלֹֽמֹתָ֖יו וְעַל־דְּבָרָֽיו:

His brothers said to him, “Oh, we are so sure you’ll rule over us, or take charge of us”; they added hating him more over his dreams and his words.

They could have issued a direct denial, but instead, the grammar says “No way are you in a position to do this,” the conditions don’t exist.

I once thought I had found an example of the duplicate conditional with each word in a different binyan but once I studied it carefully, I found both verbs were in nifal binyan.

There’s another structure like this, and it uses perfect aspect verbs.

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.