| 20. Linguistic Exegesis The clause introduced by ve-ki {וְכִי | wə-ḵî} ‘and if’ functions as a protasis presenting a hypothetical legal scenario. The Hifil imperfect verb ya-keh {יַכֶּה | ya-qeh} ‘strikes’ conveys intentional violence by ish {אִישׁ | ʾîš} ‘a man’. The direct objects et-av-do {אֶת־עַבְדּוֹ | ʾet-ʿaḇ-dô} and et-a-ma-to {אֶת־אֲמָתוֹ | ʾet-ʾămā-tô} specify individuals under his authority. Instrumentality is marked by ba-she-vet {בַּשֵּׁבֶט | ba-šê-ḇeṭ} ‘with a rod’, where the definite article indicates a particular implement. In the apodosis, the perfect u-met {וּמֵת | u-mēṯ} ‘and he dies’ combined with the locative ta-chat ya-do {תַּחַת יָדוֹ | ṭa-ḥaṯ yā-dô} ‘under his hand’ establishes a direct causal link. The emphatic infinitive absolute na-qom {נָקֹם | nā-qōm} ‘surely’ followed by the imperfect yi-na-qem {יִנָּקֵם | yi-nā-qêm} ‘he shall be avenged’ forms a formulaic legal injunction requiring retribution. This protasis–apodosis structure underscores the seriousness of violence and the imperative of judicial response. |