וְאִם־לֹא֩ תַשִּׂ֨יג יָדֹ֜ו לִשְׁתֵּ֣י תֹרִ֗ים אֹו֮ לִשְׁנֵ֣י בְנֵי־יֹונָה֒ וְהֵבִ֨יא אֶת־קָרְבָּנֹ֜ו אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָטָ֗א עֲשִׂירִ֧ת הָאֵפָ֛ה סֹ֖לֶת לְחַטָּ֑את לֹא־יָשִׂ֨ים עָלֶ֜יהָ שֶׁ֗מֶן וְלֹא־יִתֵּ֤ן עָלֶ֨יהָ֙ לְבֹנָ֔ה כִּ֥י חַטָּ֖את הִֽיא׃
In the priestly code of Leviticus, where ritual precision often dominates the narrative, we find in Vayiqra 5:11 a verse that breathes with ethical nuance. It speaks not only to the structure of atonement but to the very fabric of social equity within the sacrificial system. When an individual cannot afford the standard offering — two turtledoves or pigeons — they may bring fine flour instead.
This substitution is more than a legal concession; it is a theological statement embedded in syntax. At its heart lies a striking grammatical phenomenon: the use of the negative particle לֹא followed by the imperfect verb form in a hypothetical clause — a construction rarely used in Biblical Hebrew for conditional statements of this kind. This subtle deviation from expected syntax reveals how deeply the text wants us to feel the vulnerability of the offerer and the compassion built into the ritual itself.
Conditional Compassion: The Structure of “If He Cannot Afford”
The verse opens with a conditional clause:
וְאִם־לֹא תַשִּׂיג יָדוֹ לִשְׁתֵּי תֹורִים אוֹ לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה
This phrase translates roughly as: “But if his hand does not reach [the price of] two turtledoves or two young pigeons…” The key expression here is וְאִם־לֹא תַשִּׂיג, which uses the negative particle לֹא with the imperfect verb תַשִּׂיג (“he reaches”) in a conditional clause — a rare construction in Biblical Hebrew.
Typically, conditional clauses in BH use either:
- אִם + יִקְטֹול (“if he kills…”) – simple future
- אִם + יִקְטֹול וְיָמֻת – protasis and apodosis
But here, the choice of לֹא + imperfect is unusual and deliberate. Let’s break down the morphology:
| Word | Root | Form | Literal Translation | Grammatical Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| תַשִּׂיג | ש-ג-ג | Hiphil imperfect, 3ms | “He will reach” (here: “he can afford”) | Used in a conditional clause with לֹא, an unusual syntactic pairing. |
This construction emphasizes the inability — not merely as a lack of means, but as a condition that must be acknowledged before prescribing an alternative path to atonement.
Rare Syntax, Rare Sensitivity
Why does the Torah choose such an unusual syntactic pattern to describe economic hardship? In most cases, BH uses כִּי אִם or אִם לֹא with the perfect tense to express negated conditions. But here, the use of לֹא + imperfect creates a sense of ongoing or potential inability — a state of being unable, rather than a single failure.
This linguistic sensitivity mirrors the ethical intent of the law: the system of atonement must accommodate all Israelites equally, regardless of wealth. By framing the inability in the imperfect tense, the text subtly conveys the persistent nature of poverty — not a one-time failure, but a structural reality.
A similar usage appears in another compassionate legal provision:
כִּי פָצֹור יִפְתַּח אֶת־יָדְךָ לֹו וְהַעֲבֵט תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ דֵּי מַחְסֹרֹו אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לֹו (Devarim 15:8)
There too, the imperfect expresses an ongoing moral obligation — just as here, it expresses an ongoing human limitation.
The Substitution Clause: A Linguistic Shift Toward Empathy
After setting up the condition, the verse transitions to the alternative offering:
וְהֵבִיא אֶת־קָרְבָּנֹו … עֲשִׂירִת הָאֵפָה סֹלֶת לְחַטָּאת
“And he shall bring his offering … a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a sin offering.”
Note the shift from the conditional clause to the imperative-like sequence. The transition is smooth, almost merciful in tone. The grammar allows no room for judgment — only adaptation. The poor person is not excluded; they are redirected, gently, toward an equivalent path of reconciliation.
This redirection is linguistically reinforced by the absence of oil and frankincense in the flour offering — a detail marked by repetition:
לֹא־יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא־יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה
Two negatives, each with a different verb, both in imperfect forms — again emphasizing the incomplete nature of the offering, not as a deficiency, but as a defined alternative.
From Law to Language: The Grammar of Dignity
In sum, the syntax of Vayiqra 5:11 reflects more than legal flexibility; it encodes a theology of accessibility. The use of לֹא + imperfect in the conditional clause highlights the ongoing struggle of the poor while preserving their dignity through grammatical nuance. This is not a law for the margins — it is a law that bends toward them.
In choosing a rare syntactic pattern to frame economic hardship, the text elevates language beyond mere instruction. It becomes a vessel for empathy, a way of seeing the unseen, and a reminder that holiness is not reserved for those who can afford it — but is woven into the very grammar of grace.
