| 31. Linguistic Exegesis The verse begins with vetappekhem {וְטַ֨פְּכֶ֔ם | və-ṭap-pə-kem} ‘and your little ones’, foregrounding the vulnerability of the next generation against the condemned adults. The relative clause introduced by asher {אֲשֶׁ֥ר | ʾa-šer} ‘whom’ embeds the community’s own utterance (amartem {אֲמַרְתֶּ֖ם | ʾa-mar-tem} ‘you said’ + lavaz {לָבַ֣ז | lā-vaz} ‘as prey’), setting up the anticipated fate articulated by yihyeh {יִהְיֶ֑ה | yi-ḥyēh} ‘would be’. The narrative turns with the Hiphil perfect in veheveiti {וְהֵבֵיאתִ֣י | wə-hê-bê-ʾî-āṯî} ‘and I will bring’, a vav clause that reverses human expectation through divine agency. The pronominal otam {אֹתָ֔ם | ʾō-tām} ‘them’ is immediately linked to veyade'u {וְיָֽדְעוּ֙ | wə-yā-ḏə-ʿū} ‘and they will know’, identifying et-haaretz {אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ | ʾet-hā-ʾā-reṣ} ‘the land’ as the object of realization. The second asher clause (asher meastem bah {אֲשֶׁ֥ר מְאַסְתֶּ֖ם בָּֽהּ | ʾa-šer mə-ʾas-sə-tem bāh}) ‘which you have rejected in it’ frames the theological significance of refusal. The interplay of imperfect, perfect, and vav-Hiphil forms underscores the contrast between human despair and divine promise. |