| 20. Linguistic Exegesis The clause opens with wayyotse {וַיֹּצֵא֩ | wayyōṣēʾ} ‘he brought out,’ a causative form that frames the payment as something Menahem actively extracts rather than a voluntary gift. The direct object is marked by et-hakkesef {אֶת־הַכֶּ֜סֶף | ʾeṯ-hāqqēsep̄} ‘the silver,’ while the repeated preposition ʿal {עַל | ʿal} sets the levy “upon” Israel and then more specifically upon kol-gibborei hakhayil {כָּל־גִּבּוֹרֵי הַחַ֔יִל | kol-gibbōrê haḥayil}, narrowing the burden to the leading, capable men. The infinitive latet {לָתֵת֙ | lāṯēṯ} ‘to give’ expresses purpose, linking the internal exaction to an external political payment directed to lemelekh ashur {לְמֶ֣לֶךְ אַשּׁ֔וּר | ləmeleḵ ʾaššûr} ‘the king of Assyria.’ The distributive phrase leish echad {לְאִ֣ישׁ אֶחָ֑ד | ləʾîš ʾeḥāḏ} ‘for one man’ clarifies that the sum is assessed per person, not as a single lump amount. The closing sequence wayyashav {וַיָּ֙שָׁב֙ | wayyāšāḇ} ‘he turned back’ followed by velo-amad {וְלֹא־עָ֥מַד | wə-lōʾ-ʿāmaḏ} ‘he did not remain’ presents the result: the tribute achieves a withdrawal rather than an occupation, reinforced by the locative sham baarets {שָׁ֖ם בָּאָֽרֶץ | šām bāʾāreṣ} ‘there in the land.’ |