Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Joseph,
     Since no one has answered your question, let me say that I find it a
difficult one. The atnah as the major divider of Leviticus 5:22 could
divide as it does now or it could divide if placed under BFH, as Milgrom
wants to do. The Masoretes probably saw the words after atnah as loosely
referring to the entire series of sins mentioned. Down in 5:26 quite
similar words refer to the entire list of sins in verses 22-23. They may
have favored seeing the prepositional phrase (AL )AXAT as modifying the
initial verb "sin" of verse 21, linking the infinitive construct "to sin"
at the end of verse 22 back to "sin" in verse 21.
     I do not have Milgrom, but in verse 22 he must link "swear with
falsehood" to (AL )AXAT MIKOL ("about one from all"). Verses 23-24 repeat
the items in verses 21-22. In verse 24 MIKOL is followed by "which he swore
about it with falsehood." "About it" is (FLFYW, and it can correspond with
(AL )AXAT ("about one") in verse 22.
     However, a question relating to Milgrom's construction is the
conjunction before "swears" in verse 22. Does it mean "and" or "or"? The
word "or" in the sentence is )WO in several places. So Moses may regard the
swearing in verse 22 as linked to the lying. Perhaps the man used an oath
when lying about the lost property. Thus "deceive" (KH$) in 5:23 may return
to "deceive" in 5:21in the sense that there is deception involved in each
activity named. Then the clause about swearing could refer to any of the
sins named.
     Since the conjunction W can mean "or," it is hard to be dogmatic. And
since fraud involving false swearing is just one of the items that might
need restitution in verses 23-24, it is hard to assume that there had to be
false swearing in each kind of sin named. I really do not know the answer
yet to where the atnah ought to go. But I share these thoughts to encourage
you.
     There are obvious translation implications. See the NIV, which makes
an independent clause out of the words after the atnah. Generally in cases
like these, where both alternatives can work, one is safe to go with the
Masoretes, since they knew an ancient tradition of reading the verses.
However, if Milgrom thinks that the atnah cannot work at all as it stands,
he ought to demonstrate the dysfunction.

                                        Sincerely,
                                        Harold