| 1. Linguistic Exegesis The conditional particle ki {כִּי | kî} introduces the protasis stipulating the offense. The Qal imperfect yîḡnōḇ {יִגְנֹב | yîḡnōḇ} predicates theft by ʾîš {אִישׁ | ʾîš}. The disjunctive o {אוֹ | ʾô} presents alternative property between šôr {שׁוֹר | šôr} and ṣéh {שֶׂה | ṣéh}. Coordinated Qal perfect verbs utevakho {וּטְבָחוֹ | ûṭə-bā-ḥô} and omekaro {אוֹ־מְכָרוֹ | ʾō-mə-kā-rô} specify subsequent illicit actions. The apodosis shifts to restitution with Piel imperfect yə-ša-lêm {יְשַׁלֵּם | yə-ša-lêm}, governed by the substitution preposition ṭa-ḥat {תַּחַת | ṭa-ḥat}. Numeral phrases chamishah bā-qār {חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר | ḥă-miš-šāh bā-qār} and wə-ʾar-bāʿ ṣôn {וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן | wə-ʾar-bāʿ ṣôn} establish the restitution ratios. This parallelism between imperfect and perfect verbal sequences yields a concise legal formula. |