| 12. Linguistic Exegesis The verse uses paratactic coordination to list successive social and religious offenses. It begins with the nominal phrase ani {עָנִ֤י | ʿā-nî} ‘poor’ and evyon {וְאֶבְיוֹן֙ | wə-ʾe-vyōn} ‘needy’, where the vav prefix indicates addition. The Hiphil perfect honah {הוֹנָ֔ה | hō-nāh} ‘he oppresses’ introduces active injustice, followed by the hendiadys of robbery in gezelot {גְּזֵל֣וֹת | gə-zē-lōṯ} ‘robbery’ and gazal {גָּזָ֔ל | gā-zāl} ‘he robs’ for emphasis. The infinitive-construct clause chaval lo yashiv {חֲבֹ֖ל | ḥă-vōl / לֹא יָשִׁ֑יב} ‘not to restore the pledge’ expresses a categorical failure of restitution. This is followed by nasa einav el-hagillulim {נָשָׂ֣א | nā-sāʾ / עֵינָ֔יו} ‘he lifts his eyes to the idols’, portraying idolatrous orientation, and concludes with asah to'evah {עָשָֽׂה | ʿā-śāh / תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה} ‘to commit an abomination’ as the moral summation. The absence of subordinating conjunctions creates an unrelenting series of actions that underscore the comprehensive nature of the transgressions. |