“Leit Mayya”: Verbless Clauses and Existential Negation in Targum Onkelos

וּנְטָלוּ כָּל כְּנִשְׁתָּא דִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמַדְבְּרָא דְסִין לְמַטְלָנֵיהוֹן עַל מֵימְרָא דַיְיָ וּשְׁרוֹ בִּרְפִידִים וְלֵית מַיָא לְמִשְׁתֵּי עַמָא

And the entire assembly of the children of Yisraʾel departed from the wilderness of Sin for their journeys by the word of the LORD, and they camped in Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink

Opening Insight: A Sentence Without a Verb?

One of the fascinating features of Targumic Aramaic is its use of verbless clauses—sentences where no overt verb appears, yet full semantic content is achieved. In this verse from Exodus 17:1, we find the striking phrase: וְלֵית מַיָא לְמִשְׁתֵּי עַמָא, meaning “and there was no water for the people to drink.”

At first glance, one might expect a verb like “was” or “became.” Instead, the Aramaic relies on the particle לֵית to carry the existential force of negation. This lesson explores the structure, function, and discourse effect of such verbless clauses in Targum Onkelos.

Morphology: Unpacking לֵית

Form and Meaning

– לֵית is the negative existential particle in Aramaic.
– It is indeclinable and stands in for “there is not” or “there was not.”
– It contrasts with אִית (“there is”), its affirmative counterpart.

Syntax of לֵית

– לֵית governs a noun that serves as the subject of the existential statement.
– It is often followed by a prepositional phrase expressing the scope or recipient of negation (e.g., לְמִשְׁתֵּי עַמָא).

Syntax: Structure of the Verbless Clause

Phrase Breakdown

– וְלֵית – “and there was not”
– מַיָא – “water” (definite by form and context)
– לְמִשְׁתֵּי – “to drink” (infinitive of שָׁתָא, Peal)
– עַמָא – “the people”

Clause Function

The clause as a whole reads:

> וְלֵית מַיָא לְמִשְׁתֵּי עַמָא
> “And there was no water for the people to drink.”

This is a classic negative existential clause—a syntactic pattern typical in Aramaic for expressing absence or non-existence. Unlike Biblical Hebrew, which often uses forms of היה (hāyâ), Aramaic prefers non-verbal existential constructions.

Semantics: Absence as Emphasis

Lexical Impact of לֵית

Using לֵית as a standalone anchor of negation heightens dramatic tension. Here in Exodus 17:1, it underscores the desperation of the people arriving in Rephidim and finding no water at all. The structure gives the absence itself a weighty ontological presence.

Scope of Negation

The negative existential is not simply negating “drinking” but the presence of drinkable water—the source of the need itself. Aramaic uses לֵית to say: “Not even the thing needed for drinking is present.”

Discourse Function: Rhythm and Suspense

Placing the Clause at the End

Note the placement of the verbless clause at the very end of the verse. This positioning:

– Delays the crisis until the final moment.
– Builds suspense through the sequence of movement, arrival, and then sudden lack.
– Emphasizes that Rephidim—a place of rest—is paradoxically a place of thirst.

Contrast to the Command

Earlier in the verse: עַל מֵימְרָא דַיְיָ – “by the word of the LORD” — suggests divine guidance.

The final line וְלֵית מַיָא introduces an apparent contradiction: guidance brought them to a place with no water. This syntactic structure sets the stage for the testing of faith that follows.

Comparative Examples of לֵית Clauses

When Nothing Speaks Loudest

The presence of לֵית in Targum Onkelos is more than a negation—it is a grammatical signal of tension. In Exodus 17:1, the use of a verbless clause reveals more than just grammar: it reflects the emotional and theological stakes of the moment. The people, led by divine word, find no provision. The syntax captures this poignantly: no water—not even the verb “to be” is there. Only negation stands.

In Targumic Aramaic, sometimes what’s not there says everything.