| 4. Linguistic Exegesis The verse employs a sequential series of vav-consecutive verbs—vehugadlekha {וְהֻגַּד־לְךָ | wə-huggad-lə-ḵā} ‘and it was told’, veshamaʿta {וְשָׁמָעְתָּ | wə-šāmāʿ-tā} ‘and you heard’, vedarash'ta {וְדָרַשְׁתָּ | wə-ḏā-rā-šə-tā} ‘and you investigated’—to structure the legal procedure. The infinitive absolute heitev {הֵיטֵב | hêy-ṭēv} ‘thoroughly’ intensifies the action of inquiry. The interjection vehineh {וְהִנֵּה | wə-hinnēh} introduces a conditional result clause, which hinges on the substantive terms emet {אֱמֶת | ʾe-met} ‘truth’ and the Niphal participle nakhon {נָכוֹן | nā-ḵōn} ‘established’ to assess factual certainty. The passive Niphal perfect neʿesetah {נֶעֶשְׂתָה | nə-ʿə-sā-ṯā} ‘has been done’ foregrounds the completion of the act, fitting its judicial context. Finally, the construct chain hatoʿevah hazot beyisraʾel {הַתּוֹעֵבָה הַזֹּאת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל | hat-tō-ʿê-vāh ha-zōṯ bə-yis-rā-ʾēl} ‘this abomination in Israel’ locates the offense within the communal domain. The English rendering preserves the Hebrew’s conditional syntax and passive voice to reflect the verse’s legal precision. |