| 36. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with the conditional veim {וְאִם | wə-ʾim} ‘and if’, framing the legal scenario. The niphal perfect noda {נוֹדַע | nō-ḏāʿ} ‘it was known’ functions as a factual prerequisite, with ki {כִּי | kî} ‘that’ introducing the qualifying clause. The noun phrase shor naggach {שׁוֹר נַגָּח | šôr nag-gāḥ} ‘goring bull’ employs a participle to indicate habitual aggression. The temporal adverbial mittemol shilshom {מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם | mittᵉ-mōl šil-šōm} ‘from yesterday the day before yesterday’ specifies the relevant prior days. The negated clause velo yishmerennu bealav {וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו | wə-lōʼ yišmə-rēnû bᵉ-ʿā-lāw} highlights the owner’s failure to act. The infinitive absolute plus imperfect shalem yishallem {שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם | šallēm yišallēm} ‘surely he shall pay’ intensifies the restitution directive. The substitution formula shor tachat hashor {שׁוֹר תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר | šôr ṭaḥaṯ ha-šôr} ‘bull for bull’ conveys direct equivalence, and vehamet yihyeh lo {וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לוֹ | wᵉ-hammēt yihyēh lōʼ} finalizes the transfer of the carcass to the owner. The English rendering preserves the Hebrew’s legal precision in conditional and substitutive structure. |