| 29. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with the conditional particle veʾim {וְאִם | wə-’im} introducing a protasis. The noun šôr {שׁוֹר | šôr} with the active participle naggāḥ {נַגָּח | nag-gāḥ} establishes recurring goring, further specified by the merism mittə-mōl šilšôm {מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם | mittə-mōl šil-šôm} indicating past occurrences. The Hophal perfect wə-hūʿăḏ {וְהוּעַד | wə-hū-ʿăḏ} serves as a legal warning report, directed by bibəbəʿālayw {בִּבְעָלָיו | bib-bə-ʿā-lāyw}. The negative imperfect wə-lō yišmərənnû {וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ | wə-lō yiš-mə-rən-nû} marks owner negligence. The Hiphil perfect wə-hēmitt {וְהֵמִית | wə-hē-mitt} denotes causation, leading into the passive yissāqēl {יִסָּקֵל | yissā-qēl} “shall be stoned.” The parallel clause wə-gam-bibəbəʿālayw yūmāṯ {וְגַם־בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת | wə-gam-bib-bə-ʿā-lāyw yū-māṯ} extends the sentence’s penalty to the owner, reflecting casuistic law’s structured progression from condition to judgment. |