| 21. Linguistic Exegesis The opening nominal clause kol ish asher-bo-mum {כָּל־אִ֞ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ מ֗וּם | kâl ʾîš ʾăšer bô mūm} ‘every man who has a blemish’ combines the relative pronoun and a prepositional suffix to establish an inclusive prohibition. The construct mizzērāʿ aharon hakōhen {מִזֶּ֙רַע֙ אַהֲרֹ֣ן הַכֹּהֵ֔ן | mizzērāʿ ʾăhărôn hakōhên} ‘descendant of Aaron the priest’ limits the ban to the Aaronide line. The negation lō yiggāš leḥāqrîḇ {לֹ֣א יִגַּ֔שׁ לְהַקְרִ֖יב | lō yiggāš leḥāqrîḇ} pairs the imperfect verb with an infinitive construct to convey ongoing exclusion. The repeated mūm {מוּם | mūm} ‘blemish’ in the apodosis intensifies the causal rationale. The clitic et marks the direct objects et ʾîššê Yahweh {אֶת־אִשֵּׁ֣י יְהוָ֑ה | ʾet ʾîššê Yəhōwāh} ‘fire-offerings of the LORD’ and ʾēt leḥem ʾĕlōhāv {אֵ֚ת לֶ֣חֶם אֱלֹהָ֔יו | ʾēt leḥem ʾĕlōhāv} ‘the bread of his God,’ creating a merismus for cultic offerings. The chiastic repetition of the prohibition clauses establishes parallelism, which the English translations mirror by restating the ban to preserve the rhetorical emphasis. |