| 4. Linguistic Exegesis The verse begins with vezeh {וְזֶה֙ | vê-zê} ‘and this,’ a formula marking the introduction of a legal provision. Devar {דְּבַ֣ר | də-var} ‘matter’ in construct with harotzeach {הָרֹצֵ֔חַ | hā-rō-ṣē-aḥ} ‘manslayer’ establishes the case title. The first relative clause asher yanus shamah vachai {אֲשֶׁר־יָנ֥וּס שָׁ֖מָּה וָחָ֑י | ʾă-šer yā-nûs šām-mah wā-ḥāy} uses imperfect and perfect forms to describe the manslayer’s right to flee and live. The second clause asher yakeh et re’eihu bivli-da’at {אֲשֶׁר יַכֶּה אֶת־רֵעֵהוּ בִּבְלִי־דַ֔עַת | ʾă-šer yak-keh ʾet re-ʾê-hū bi-vli-ḏa-ʿat} employs the Hiphil imperfect for the act of striking, with et marking the direct object and bivli-da’at indicating absence of intent. The conjunction vehu lo sone lo mitmol shilshom {וְהוּא לֹא־שֹׂנֵ֥א ל֖וֹ מִתְּמֹ֥ל שִׁלְשֹֽׁם | wə-hūʾ lōʾ sō-nê lô mit-tə-mōl šil-šōm} clarifies the lack of prior animosity through parallel temporal expressions, which the English preserves to maintain legal precision. |