| 4. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with ki-hayu {כִּֽי־הָי֧וּ | kî-hāyû} functioning as a causal explanation anchored in a prior land-allotment discussion: “for it turned out that…”. The construct unit bnei-Yosef {בְנֵֽי־יוֹסֵ֛ף | bənê-yôsēp̄} is immediately quantified by shnei mattot {שְׁנֵ֥י מַטּ֖וֹת | šənê maṭṭôṯ} and then specified by the apposition Menasheh wə-ʾephrāyim {מְנַשֶּׁ֣ה וְאֶפְרָ֑יִם | mənāššê wə-ʾephrāyim}, highlighting that Joseph’s inheritance is represented through two tribes. The next clause is joined with vav and negated: velo natnu chelek {וְלֹֽא־נָתְנוּ֩ חֵ֨לֶק | wə-lōʾ-nāṯənû ḥēleq} denies the normal pattern of a territorial allotment, while the indirect object laLeviim {לַלְוִיִּ֜ם | la-ləwiyyîm} and the locative baaretz {בָּאָ֗רֶץ | bā-ʾāreṣ} define the sphere of what was not given: an allotment “in the land.” The phrase ki ʾim {כִּ֤י אִם־ | kî ʾim} introduces a strong exceptive contrast (“instead/except”), narrowing what the Levites did receive to arim lashevet {אִם־עָרִים֙ לָשֶׁ֔בֶת | ʾim-ʿārîm lā-šeḇeṯ} and then a coordinated list of supporting resources: umigrsheihem… lemikneihem… ulekinyanam {וּמִ֨גְרְשֵׁיהֶ֔ם לְמִקְנֵיהֶ֖ם וּלְקִנְיָנָֽם | û-miḡrəšêhem lə-miqnêhem û-lə-qinyānām}. The Hebrew syntax uses this exception structure to contrast full tribal land inheritance with limited residential and economic provisions, framing the Levites as supported within Israel’s territory without receiving a tribal land portion. |