| 5. Linguistic Exegesis The conditional conjunction vechi {וְכִ֨י | və·ḥî} ‘and if’ introduces a protasis outlining the legal condition. The verb yirdof {יִרְדֹּ֜ף | yir·dōp} ‘he pursues’ in the Qal imperfect indicates ongoing pursuit by the avenger. The construct go’el hadam {גֹּאֵ֤ל הַדָּם֙ | gō’ēl ha·dām} ‘avenger of blood’ designates the kinsman with the right of pursuit. The prohibition velo yasgirū {וְלֹֽא־יַסְגִּ֥רוּ | wə·lō’ yas·gî·rū} ‘they shall not hand over’ in the Hiphil imperfect directs the elders, with harotzeach {הָרֹצֵ֖חַ | hā·rō·ṣē·aḥ} ‘the slayer’ tagged by et {אֶת־ | ʾet} ‘direct-object marker’. The causal clause ki bivli-da’at {כִּ֤י בִּבְלִי־דַ֙עַת | kî bi·blî·da·ʿat} ‘because without knowledge’ marks lack of intent, while velo sone {וְלֹֽא־שֹׂנֵ֥א | wə·lō’ sō·nêʾ} ‘and had not hated’ with hu {ה֛וּא | hû’} underscores no prior malice. The temporal idiom mittemol shilshom {מִתְּמ֥וֹל שִׁלְשֽׁוֹם | miṯ·tǝ·mōl šil·šōm} ‘from yesterday, the day before yesterday’ emphasizes the recency of the unintentional act. This structure preserves the interplay of condition, prohibition, causality, and temporality central to the statute. |