וְהָיָה֮ כִּֽי־יֶחֱטָ֣א וְאָשֵׁם֒ וְהֵשִׁ֨יב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָ֜ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר גָּזָ֗ל אֹ֤ו אֶת־הָעֹ֨שֶׁק֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׁ֔ק אֹ֚ו אֶת־הַפִּקָּדֹ֔ון אֲשֶׁ֥ר הָפְקַ֖ד אִתֹּ֑ו אֹ֥ו אֶת־הָאֲבֵדָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר מָצָֽא׃ (Leviticus 5:23)
Legal Syntax, Moral Structure
Leviticus 5:23 (Eng. 6:4) operates at the intersection of confession and reparation. Its syntax reveals a legal formula designed to enumerate the possibilities of theft or dishonesty while directing the offender to restitution. The verse’s layered clause structure and repetitive patterns convey both comprehensive legal coverage and didactic emphasis. Syntax here serves jurisprudence.
Clause Structure: Conditional Framework with Coordinated Restitution
The verse begins with a conditional introductory formula:
– וְהָיָה כִּי־יֶחֱטָא וְאָשֵׁם
(“And it shall be when he sins and becomes guilty”)
This is a type of conditional clause using כִּי + yiqtol (יִחֱטָא), followed by a vav-conjoined perfect וְאָשֵׁם (“and he bears guilt”)—a slightly unusual yet common legal idiom in priestly texts.
The second half of the verse is a coordinated list of possible restitutions, introduced by:
– וְהֵשִׁיב: Hiphil perfect, “he shall return/restore”
What follows are four parallel accusative objects, each introduced by אֹו (“or”), and each modified by a relative clause beginning with אֲשֶׁר:
1. אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל – “the theft which he stole”
2. אֶת־הָעֹשֶׁק אֲשֶׁר עָשָׁק – “the oppression which he oppressed”
3. אֶת־הַפִּקָּדֹון אֲשֶׁר הָפְקַד אִתֹּו – “the deposit which was entrusted with him”
4. אֶת־הָאֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר מָצָא – “the lost item which he found”
Each object is definite, direct, and retroactively clarified by the relative clause.
Word Order: Restoration First, Sins Catalogued Second
The verb וְהֵשִׁיב leads the restitution clause, followed by a rhythm of accusative noun + relative clause. This word order emphasizes the act of returning before elaborating what is returned, syntactically aligning with legal formulations that prioritize action over detail.
Nominal Phrases: Legal Precision and Repetition
All direct objects are structured as:
– Definite object (אֶת־ + noun)
– + Relative clause (אֲשֶׁר + verb)
The nouns themselves reflect diverse types of dishonest gain:
– גְּזֵלָה (theft) – overt taking
– עֹשֶׁק (oppression/extortion) – abusive withholding
– פִּקָּדֹון (deposit) – breach of trust
– אֲבֵדָה (lost item) – passive wrongdoing (finding and not returning)
Each phrase is syntactically uniform, but semantically unique.
Verbal Syntax: Aspect and Legal Obligation
– יֶחֱטָא: yiqtol (imperfect), signaling future or hypothetical action.
– וְאָשֵׁם: qatal (perfect), indicating resultant guilt.
– וְהֵשִׁיב: Hiphil perfect with vav, functioning imperatively: “he must restore.”
The relative clauses all use perfect verbs to retrospectively establish the crime:
גָּזָל, עָשָׁק, הָפְקַד, מָצָא – “he stole,” “he oppressed,” “it was entrusted,” “he found.”
Agreement and Legal Clarity
Each verb agrees with an implied male subject (3ms), maintaining legal clarity. The syntax ensures that each form of wrongdoing is grammatically and legally linked to the offender.
Tense, Aspect, and Mood: Pattern of Guilt and Action
The structure moves from:
1. Future hypothetical sin →
2. Resultant guilt →
3. Mandated action of restitution
The aspectual pairing of imperfect + perfect + perfect enacts a flow from offense to realization to remedy.
Waw-Consecutive and Enumeration
The use of אֹו (“or”) for listing cases, rather than narrative waw (וְ), serves legal enumeration. This is not sequential action, but a series of conditional possibilities—syntax operating as legal taxonomy.
Emphasis and Focus: Syntax as Judicial Instruction
– The initial clause וְהָיָה כִּי־יֶחֱטָא וְאָשֵׁם draws attention to personal culpability.
– The fronted verb וְהֵשִׁיב places action before object, highlighting that making it right matters more than which wrong occurred.
The Architecture of Emphasis
Leviticus 5:23 is syntactically shaped like a legal scroll: repetitive, categorical, and exact. Through coordinated relative clauses and fronted restitution, the syntax functions as a moral blueprint, demanding that the guilty not only confess but also restore. The formality of its structure enacts the gravity of justice—sentence by sentence, object by object.
