Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Bryan, you wrote:

> B-Haverim:
>
> May I make some comments:
>
> 16:6 `ereb vida`tem...  "(sun-)setting: and then you will be the ones that
> know..."
> 16:7 uboqer ur'item...  "and morning: and then you will be the ones that
> see..."
>
> These are interesting in their use of pre-posed temporal adverbs with
> vavved verb forms!  We, of course, expect yiqtol forms for future whenever
> there is an element pre-posed to the verb (like in v. 12).  Such a case as
> above is evidence, it seems to me, that the choice of a prefixed verb form
> versus a suffixed is not conditioned *only* by the presence or absence of
> an "emphasized," pre-posed element.   We are encouraged by such an example
> to think the natural thought: that a weqatal itself means something
> different than a yiqtol.

Or, could we see the above as an abbreviation of:
wehayah (or yihyeh) ba`ereb wida`tem . . . etc. ?

> These particular constructions utilize the
> attributive nature of the weqatal form as opposed to the fientic nature of
> the yiqtol.  I suspect the syntax sounds emphatic and perturbed in the ears
> of the congregation.  The knowing and the seeing of the congregation will
> be the sure consequence of the coming evening and morning.

I'm not sure subsequent events bear this out - they should be sure 
consequences, but
v. 28: then the Lord said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep my 
commandments
and my instructions?

>
>
> V. 13 compare:
>
> vayhi ba`ereb vata`al haslav...  "and it happened at the setting and the
> quail came up"
>
>  and
>
> ubaboqer haytah $ikbat hatal...  "and in the morning the settling of the
> dew had come..."
>
> The quail are presented as "coming up" after the setting of the sun as we
> should have expected from the prediction that they would be eaten at
> twilight (beyn `ereb is just after `ereb).  In contrast, "in the morning"
> the dew had already come.  There is a subtle and precise chronology set up
> by the verb forms in these two examples.
>

Yes, that would make nice sense.  I retract my suggestion that there wouldn't 
be any
difference between what we have and a hypothetical wayhi babboqer...

On the other hand, I think it's still noteworthy that the timeline is 
advanced from
evening to morning without any help from wayyiqtol, and it still looks to me 
that
ubabboqer . . .  is just as "mainline" as the wayehi clauses.

He could have used a wayehi clause to describe the dew settling (wayehi 
ballaylah . .
.) so perhaps the extant text does in fact reflect a purposeful symmetry - 
not in
grammar and syntax but in repeating of the evening/morning theme, which leads 
me to
another (non-grammatical) thought :

The three-fold repetition of evening/morning in this passage, followed by a 
sabbath
observance, fits in with the idea of the creation week being two sets of 
three days
which are interelated and re-enacted in Israel's history; the first three days
re-enacted at the crossing of the Red Sea (analogous to the creation of the 
physical
universe), while the 2nd set of 3 days is to be re-enacted when Israel keeps 
the law
(analogous to filling the formed earth with life); i.e. redemption from Egypt 
is not
the ultimate goal but Israel in God's image is the ultimate goal (Gen 1:26), 
which is
followed by rest.

Would you find any nuance of difference in the verbal meanings of the 
following?
Exod 16:22 wayhi bayyom hashishiy laqetu . . .
versus a hypothetical (but standard) wayyilqetu bayyom hashishiy . . .
or wayhi bayyom hashishiy wayyilqetu . . .

(similarly 16:27)

Yours,

John