| 18. Linguistic Exegesis The temporal phrase ba-yom ha-shvi-i be-terem ya-vo ha-char-sa {בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי֘ בְּטֶ֙רֶם֙ יָבֹ֣א הַחַ֔רְסָה | ba-yom ha-shvi-i be-terem ya-vo ha-char-sa} ‘temporal frame’ sets the speeches before sunset on the seventh day. The comparative questions mah-matok middəvaš umeh az mēʾari {מַה־מָּת֣וֹק מִדְּבַ֔שׁ וּמֶ֥ה עַ֖ז מֵאֲרִ֑י | mah-matok middəḇaš umeh ʿaz mēʾari} ‘parallel comparison’ use the interrogative mah (“what”) and coordinate with waw to heighten the rhetorical challenge. In Samson’s reply, the counterfactual lule kharashtem be-eglati lo metsatem hidati {לוּלֵא֙ חֲרַשְׁתֶּ֣ם בְּעֶגְלָתִ֔י לֹ֥א מְצָאתֶ֖ם חִידָתִֽי | lule ḥăraštem bəʿeḡlātî lōʾ məṣāʾātem ḥîḏātî} ‘negative conditional’ employs the particle luleʾ with the perfect to express “if you had not plowed…”. The idiom “plow with my heifer” underscores the method of solution. The vav-consecutive imperfect verbs bind the speeches and advance the narrative. |