| 3. Linguistic Exegesis The verse employs a parallel prohibition formula marked by kema’aseh {כְּמַעֲשֵׂ֧ה | kə-ma-ʿă-sêh} ‘as the practice’ followed by the negative particle lo {לֹא | lōʾ} plus the imperfect verbs ta’asu {תַעֲשׂ֑וּ | ta-ʿa-sû} and telekhu {תֵלֵכוּ | tê-le-kû}, creating a binary warning against adopting foreign customs. The construct chains erets-mitsrayim {אֶֽרֶץ־מִצְרַ֛יִם | ʾe-reṣ-mits-rayim} and erets-kena’an {אֶֽרֶץ־כְּנַ֡עַן | ʾe-reṣ-kə-na-ʿăn} frame two distinct cultural spheres. The Qal perfect yeshavtem-bah {יְשַׁבְתֶּם־בָּהּ | yə-šav-tem-bah} ‘you dwelt in it’ signals historical context, while the Hifil participle mevi {מֵבִיא | mê-vîʾ} ‘bringing’ with object etkhem {אֶתְכֶם | ʾet-khem} establishes divine agency and future orientation. The phrase u-vechukoteihem {וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם | u-və-ḥu-qō-ṯê-hêm} ‘and in their statutes’ broadens the prohibition from occasional acts to entire legal and religious systems. The English “follow the practices” renders ta’asu’s nuance of habitual conformity, and “walk in their statutes” reflects the Hebrew metaphor for lifestyle direction. |