| 16. Linguistic Exegesis The clause opens with the conjunction vav {וְ | wə} attached to ishah {אִשָּׁה | ’iš-šâh} ‘and a woman,’ linking it to the preceding legislation. The relative pronoun asher {אֲשֶׁר | ’ă-šer} ‘who’ introduces a defining relative clause. Tiqrav {תִּקְרַב | tiq-rāḇ} ‘approaches’ in Qal imperfect frames a conditional action. The prepositional phrase el kol behemah {אֶל־כָּל־בְּהֵמָה | ’el kol bə-hê-mâh} ‘toward any animal’ extends the prohibition to every beast. Lə-ribʿah {לְרִבְעָה | lə-rib-‘âh} ‘for copulation’ indicates purpose. The vav-consecutive plus perfect vəhāraqtā {وְהָרַגְתָּ | wə-hă-rag-tā} ‘and you shall kill’ articulates the judicial command, immediately followed by the markers et … və’et {אֵת … וְאֵת | ’et … wə-’et} specifying both the woman and the beast. Mot … yumatu {מוֹת … יוּמָתוּ | mûṯ … yû-mā-ṭû} forms an emphatic punitive formula. Finally, the phrase dəmêhem bām {דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם | də-mê-hem bām} ‘their blood is on them’ ascribes forensic culpability, underscoring personal liability. The repetition of direct object markers and the pairing of the infinitive absolute with the imperfect intensify the law’s universal scope and severity. |