Grammar:Tenses in Tanakh/0

Tenses in Tanakh

עבר מהופך

Tanakh normally expresses the perfect (past)¹ tense by using the vav-consecutive² form of the verb followed by the subject ("וַיֵּלֶךְ אַבְרָם" or "וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה") . At times, though, Tanakh employs a form known as "עבר מהופך",  beginning with the subject and following with the simple form of the verb ("וְהָאָדָם יָדַע" or "וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָלְכוּ"). What is the difference in meaning between the two verbal forms?  When Torah uses "עבר מהופך", what is it trying to convey? 

• Past Perfect – Several commentators³ suggest that this form is used when Tanakh wants to express that an action took place in the more distant past, prior to the events being discussed (equivalent to the "past perfect").⁴ As such, its usage is often an indicator of achronology.  Many examples follow:
• Bereshit 4:1 - Bereshit 4:1 places the conception and birth of Kayin and Hevel after the expulsion from Eden. Rashi Bereshit 4:1Bereshit 21:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchakisuggests that the past perfect form "וְהָאָדָם יָדַע אֶת חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ" in the unit's heading hints to the fact that the birth took place beforehand, while Adam and Chavvah were still in the Garden of Eden.⁵
• Bereshit 11:10-23 – After recounting the story of the Tower of Bavel, Bereshit 11:10ff lists the descendants of Shem. The first few verses of the list follow a similar format "‎..וְפלוני חַי... וַיְחִי פלוני".  With the birth of Peleg in verse 17, however, the pattern shifts and we no longer see the past perfect but instead, "...וַיְחִי פלוני... וַיְחִי פלוני".  According to Seder Olam Rabbah, it was in Peleg's time period that the story of the Towel of Bavel and dispersal took place.  If so, the initial verses which employ the past perfect might be hinting to achronology; all those descendants were born before the Tower was built, and in a purely chronological narrative would have been mentioned beforehand.
• Bereshit 12:17 – After Sarah is taken to Paroh's palace the verse states, "וּלְאַבְרָם הֵיטִיב בַּעֲבוּרָהּ" rather than "וַיֵטֶב לְאַבְרָם".  Hoil Moshe suggests that this means that Paroh had given Avraham special commerce privileges in the land even before taking Sarah⁶ (and that it was through these that he grew rich and "had sheep, cattle etc.")⁷
• Bereshit 18:17 –  After discussing Avraham's interactions with the 3 angels, Bereshit 18:17 speaks of Hashem's decision to share His plan to destroy Sedom with Avraham: "וַי״י אָמָר הַמְכַסֶּה אֲנִי מֵאַבְרָהָם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה".  See ShadalBereshit 18:17About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, Hoil MosheBereshit 18:17About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi and R. D"Z Hoffmann Bereshit 18:17About R. David Zvi Hoffmannthat the past perfect form teaches that Hashem had already decided to share His plans with Avraham, before sending the angels.⁸
• Bereshit 21:1-2 – Sarah's conception and pregnancy with Yitzchak is described in Bereshit 21. However, RashiBereshit 4:1Bereshit 21:1Shemot 24:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Avraham SabaTzeror HaMor Bereshit 21:1About R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor), and MalbimBereshit 21:1About R. Meir Leibush Weiser maintain that Sarah had conceived before the story of Avimelekh's taking of Sarah described in the previous chapter (Bereshit 20), as indicated by the past perfect, "וַה' פָּקַד אֶת שָׂרָה".
• Bereshit 25:29-34 – After discussing how Esav sold his birthright to Yaakov, the verse shares, "וְיַעֲקֹב נָתַן לְעֵשָׂו לֶחֶם וּנְזִיד עֲדָשִׁים".  HaKetav VeHaKabbalahBereshit 4:1Bereshit 25:34About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg suggests that the past perfect of "וְיַעֲקֹב נָתַן" implies that the food was provided before the sale.⁹ According to his reading, the pot of soup did not constitute payment for the birthright (as it was given before the sale).  The sale itself involved an exchange of money.¹⁰  See Sale of the Birthright – A Fair Deal for elaboration of this position.
• Bereshit 39:1 – The chapter opens with the past perfect "וְיוֹסֵף הוּרַד" to clarify that Yosef had already been taken to Egypt (i.e. before many of the events of Chapter 38, and not afterwards as the verse's placement might have suggested).¹¹
• Bereshit 45:16 – After Yosef's revelation to his brothers and his suggestion that they uproot to Egypt, verse 16 shares, "וְהַקֹּל נִשְׁמַע בֵּית פַּרְעֹה לֵאמֹר" and proceeds to tell of Paroh's invitation to the family to come to "the best of Egypt".  This echoes verse 2 which had stated, "וַיִּשְׁמַע בֵּית פַּרְעֹה" and might suggest that the two incidents are one and the same; the past perfect hints that the true timing of the event is back in verse 2.¹²  According to this reconstruction, as soon as Yosef revealed himself, Paroh heard, invited the family, and only then did Yosef reiterate the invitation to the brothers.
• Shemot 11:10 – The unit of plagues closes with the past perfect formulation, "וּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן עָשׂוּ אֶת כׇּל הַמֹּפְתִים הָאֵלֶּה" since the verse serves to summarize what has already transpired in the past.¹³
• Shemot 14:27-29 – The verses speak first of the Egyptians drowning and then of the Israelites walking through the sea on dry land, perhaps implying that they were still in the midst of crossing the sea when the Egyptians died. However, the past perfect "וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָלְכוּ בַיַּבָּשָׁה בְּתוֹךְ הַיָּם" might indicate that the nation had already walked through the sea by the time the Egyptians died. [See RashbamShemot 14:29About R. Shemuel b. Meir.]¹⁴
• Shemot 24:1 – The chapter describes the covenant at Sinai and opens with the past perfect formulation, "וְאֶל מֹשֶׁה אָמַר עֲלֵה".  This might support RashiShemot 24:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki's assertion that the chapter is achronological and its events took place before revelation, overlapping with those of Chapter 19.¹⁵
• Shemot 24:14 – Shemot 24:13 describes how Moshe and Yehoshua headed towards Mount Sinai and that Moshe ascended the mountain.  Verse 14 then shares, "וְאֶל הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ לָנוּ בָזֶה עַד אֲשֶׁר נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם".  RashiBereshit 4:1Bereshit 21:1Shemot 24:1Shemot 24:14Shemuel II 3:17About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki points out that this speech of Moshe must have taken place earlier, while he was first leaving the camp (and not after he was already on the mountain). This might be indicated by the past perfect form "אֶל הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר".
• Bemidbar 16:32-35 – After sharing that Datan and Aviram were punished by being swallowed in the earth, the chapter concludes: "וְאֵשׁ יָצְאָה מֵאֵת י״י וַתֹּאכַל אֵת הַחֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם אִישׁ ".  The past perfect form might hint that the two events were simultaneous (and not consecutive) and that all the rebels were punished at the same time.¹⁶
• Devarim 33:1 – Ibn EzraDevarim 31:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra claims that Moshe's blessings to the nation in Devarim 33 are recorded achronologically and really were relayed in Devarim 31, when Moshe encouraged the nation in face of his upcoming death. If so, the past perfect heading, "וְזֹאת הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרַךְ מֹשֶׁה" might hint to this.¹⁷
• Shemuel I 28:3-7 – The story of Shaul and Ba'alat ha'Ov opens by telling the reader, "וּשְׁמוּאֵל מֵת".  The past perfect formulation indicates that this happened already (as mentioned in Shemuel I 25:1).  [It is mentioned again only as a necessary introduction to the revival of the prophet later in the chapter.]
• Shemuel II 1:1 – The chapter opens: "וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי מוֹת שָׁאוּל וְדָוִד שָׁב מֵהַכּוֹת אֶת הָעֲמָלֵק".  Since the previous chapters had spoken of two simultaneous events, both Shaul's death and David's battle against Amalek, the chapter employs the past perfect "וְדָוִד שָׁב" to clarify that the events of this chapter happened after both Shaul's defeat and David's victory.
• Shemuel II 3:12-19 – The chapter speaks of Avner's proposal to make a covenant with David.  He tells David that he will sway the nation being ruled by Ishboshet to accept David as their king in his stead. David makes the plan contingent on Ishboshet's returning of Michal. After the condition is met, the verses share "וּדְבַר אַבְנֵר הָיָה עִם זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר גַּם תְּמוֹל גַּם שִׁלְשֹׁם הֱיִיתֶם מְבַקְשִׁים אֶת דָּוִד לְמֶלֶךְ עֲלֵיכֶם".  RashiBereshit 4:1Bereshit 21:1Shemot 24:1Shemuel II 3:17About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki suggests that the past perfect "הָיָה" implies that he had already spoken with the nation beforehand.  [If so, it was perhaps the recognition that all was already lost, that led Ishboshet to comply with David's request.]
• Melakhim I 20:1-4 – The chapter describes the war between Aram and Achav.  The past perfect form in the heading, "וּבֶן הֲדַד מֶלֶךְ אֲרָם קָבַץ אֶת כׇּל חֵילוֹ" might imply that the story is achronological and really took place earlier, during the years of drought brought by Eliyahu.¹⁸
• Melakhim II 8:1-3 – The chapter opens with a flashback "וֶאֱלִישָׁע דִּבֶּר אֶל הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר הֶחֱיָה אֶת בְּנָהּ לֵאמֹר קוּמִי וּלְכִי...  כִּי קָרָא י״י לָרָעָב".  The chapter shares that before the famine discussed in chapters 6-7, Elisha had told the woman to flee. [The point is mentioned here only to introduce the aftermath of the story.]
• Other examples: Bereshit 7:13,¹⁹ Bereshit 26:26,²⁰ Bereshit 27:6²¹
• Marker of contrast – In other cases, the עבר מהופך construct might serve to contrast two subjects or actions.  Several examples follow:
• In Bereshit 4:2, when contrasting the professions of Kayin and Hevel, the verse writes, "וַיְהִי הֶבֶל רֹעֵה צֹאן וְקַיִן הָיָה עֹבֵד אֲדָמָה". A similar contrast appears two verses later, "וַיָּבֵא קַיִן מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה... וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם הוּא".‎²²
• Bereshit 14:17-18 - N. Leibowitz suggests that these verses employ the "עבר מהופך" construction to contrast the King of Sedom with Malkitzedek.  While the former simply goes out, asking to receive something ("וַיֵּצֵא מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם"), the latter offers food ("וּמַלְכִּי צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן").
• Bereshit 18:17 – Bereshit 18:17 speaks of Hashem's decision to share His plan to destroy Sedom with Avraham: "וַי״י אָמָר הַמְכַסֶּה אֲנִי מֵאַבְרָהָם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה". See R. Y.S. ReggioBereshit 18:17About R. Yitzchak Shemuel Reggio that the formulation highlights that this verse stands in contrast to the previous one. in which we are told that the visitors headed to destroy Sedom. Here, in contrast, Hashem shares his plans with Avraham, giving him an opportunity  to pray that it not be destroyed.
• Bereshit 25:29-34 – The form "וְיַעֲקֹב נָתַן לְעֵשָׂו לֶחֶם וּנְזִיד עֲדָשִׁים" comes to contrast Yaakov's part of the transaction with Esav's.  As soon as "וַיִּמְכֹּר אֶת בְּכֹרָתוֹ לְיַעֲקֹב" then, "וְיַעֲקֹב נָתַן לְעֵשָׂו".‎²³
• Bereshit 31:47 – The variation in grammatical form in Bereshit 31:47 sets up a contrast between Lavan and Yaakov and their naming of the site of their covenant, " וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ לָבָן יְגַר שָׂהֲדוּתָא וְיַעֲקֹב קָרָא לוֹ גַּלְעֵד".
• Bereshit 32:1-2 – The verses contrast Lavan's returning to his home, with Yaakov heading towards his. We are told: "וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיָּשׇׁב לָבָן לִמְקֹמוֹ", while "וְיַעֲקֹב הָלַךְ לְדַרְכּוֹ".
• Bereshit 33:16-17 – The verses employ this grammatical form to contrast the paths taken by Yaakov and Esav, highlighting their parting of ways: "וַיָּשׇׁב בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא עֵשָׂו לְדַרְכּוֹ שֵׂעִירָה" while "וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה".
• Bereshit 39:1 - The "עבר מהופך" formulation "וְיוֹסֵף הוּרַד" might be meant to parallel "וַיֵּרֶד יְהוּדָה" of the previous chapter.  The text thus calls on the reader to contrast the two leaders and compare their stories.²⁴
• Bereshit 41:1 – Or HaChayyimBereshit 41:1About R. Chayyim b. Atar suggests that in Bereshit 41:1 the form "וּפַרְעֹה חֹלֵם" serves to contrast Paroh's dream with that of the butler and baker ("וַיַּחַלְמוּ חֲלוֹם שְׁנֵיהֶם") in the previous chapter.
• Shemot 24:1 – According to RashbamShemot 14:29Shemot 24:1About R. Shemuel b. Meir, R. Avraham b. HaRambamShemot 24:1About R. Avraham Maimonides and RambanShemot 24:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman who claim that Shemot 24 is in its chronological place, the  opening "וְאֶל מֹשֶׁה אָמַר" serves to contrast the previous set of commands which were aimed at all of Israel ("וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם") with this one which is aimed at Moshe alone.²⁵
• Bemidbar 16:32-35 contrasts the punishment of Datan and Aviram and the 250 men, sharing "וַתִּפְתַּח הָאָרֶץ אֶת פִּיהָ... וְאֵשׁ יָצְאָה".  Here, too, the grammatical change in form might highlight the contrast in punishment.
• Shemuel I 21:1 – The verse depicts the parting of ways between David and Yonatan by using this grammatical construction, וַיָּקׇם וַיֵּלַךְ וִיהוֹנָתָן בָּא הָעִיר".
• Melakhim I 12:29 – This verse similarly uses the pattern to contrast the locations of the two calves set up by Yerovam: "וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת הָאֶחָד בְּבֵית אֵל וְאֶת הָאֶחָד נָתַן בְּדָן".

Ambiguous Tenses

Most commentators appear to assume that Biblical Hebrew tenses act much the way they do in some other languages, like English, where tense connotes time, expressing either the future or past²⁶ (though maybe not the present tense).²⁷ Nonetheless, they note that these tenses are very fluid and often one might stand in for another,²⁸ leading to ambiguity.

Modern scholars,²⁹ instead, explain that Biblical Hebrew only has two tenses, the perfect and imperfect. These express the state of an action rather than its time, conveying either that an action is completed (the perfect) or incomplete (the imperfect). As such, they are somewhat comparable to the past and future tenses but not exactly, for each can refer to either a completed/incomplete action in another time-frame as well.³⁰

As a result, expression of time in Tanakh is often ambiguous and commentators often dispute whether a verb refers to the past, present, or future. Below are several categories of so-called "tense reversals"³¹ with many examples and references to commentators' varying understandings of each.

Past (or Future) for the Present

Commentators note that Tanakh often employs a past or future form when the present tense is implied.³² Ibn Ezra³³ explains that this is so because in Biblical Hebrew there is no "present tense": "ידוע כי אין בלשון הקודש סימן שיורה על הזמן האמצעי ואין בלשונם חוץ מעתיד ועבר"‎.³⁴ This, though, can often lead to ambiguity, as seen in the examples below (see footnotes for dissenting views):

• Bereshit 1:29 – Hashem tells mankind what they may eat, "הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע... לאׇכְלָה". Rashbam and Radak explain that despite the past tense formulation, the word "נָתַתִּי" should be understood as "נותן", in the present tense, for Hashem is first mandating their diet now.³⁵
• Bereshit 9:13 – In promising Noach that there will never be another flood to destroy the world, Hashem says, "אֶת קַשְׁתִּי נָתַתִּי בֶּעָנָן וְהָיְתָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית".  Ibn Ezra and Radak suggest that the verb "נתן" be understood as if written in the present (or future) tense as God appears to first be creating a rainbow and setting the sign as He speaks.³⁶
• Bereshit 14:22 – After his victory over the four kings, Avraham states, "הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי אֶל י״י" and declares that he will not take anything from the booty of battle. Rashi and Radak read the words as an expression of oath-taking, which, from context, is taking place in the present and thus suggest that "הֲרִמֹתִי" be read as "מרים אני", in the present tense.³⁷
• Bereshit 22:16 – After Avraham passes the test of the Akeidah, the angel states states, "בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי.. כִּי יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה.. כִּי בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ." The angel appears to be swearing in God's name in the present, despite the past tense formulation.³⁸
• Bereshit 23:11-13 – As Efron and Avraham discuss the sale of the Cave of Makhpelah, Efron states, "הַשָּׂדֶה נָתַתִּי לָךְ" and Avraham replies, "נָתַתִּי כֶּסֶף הַשָּׂדֶה".  As the two are still in the midst of negotiations and the field was not yet sold or bought, several commentators³⁹ suggest that their words should be understood as if written in the present (or, perhaps future) tense.⁴⁰
• Other examples – Bereshit 33:10,⁴¹ Shemot 15:1,⁴² Shemot 15:13-14,⁴³ Shemot 18:3,⁴⁴ Shemot 18:11,⁴⁵ Eikhah 1:1⁴⁶

Past for Future

Commentators note that sometimes Tanakh casts something in the past (or perfect) tense even though the future is implied.⁴⁷  This phenomenon is prevalent in prophecy and prayer where the past tense formulations express the speaker's confidence that the prophecy or request will be fulfilled.⁴⁸ The phenomenon is noted by a large number of commentators, but it is perhaps Radak who notes it most often, commenting over 60 times that Tanakh employs "עבר במקום עתיד".‎⁴⁹ Here, too, there is often ambiguity (see footnotes for those who disagree):

• Bereshit 30:13 – In explaining the name Asher, Leah says: "כִּי אִשְּׁרוּנִי בָּנוֹת".  Onkelos and others⁵⁰ suggest that Leah is expressing confidence that now "women will bless me", not that they had already done so.⁵¹ 
• Bereshit 48:6 – After Yaakov tells Yosef that Ephraim and Menashe will be considered as sons to him, he adds, "וּמוֹלַדְתְּךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹלַדְתָּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם לְךָ יִהְיוּ".  Targum Onkelos and Rashi explain that "הוֹלַדְתָּ" should be understood as if written "תוליד", "whom you will father".  This reading is motivated by the fact that the text has not mentioned that any other sons were already born to Yosef.⁵²  
• Bereshit 48:22 – Yaakov tells Yosef that he will give him "שְׁכֶם אַחַד עַל אַחֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר לָקַחְתִּי מִיַּד הָאֱמֹרִי". Many commentators⁵³ understand "שכם" to mean a"portion" and suggest that Yaakov is referring to the fact that in the future, his descendants will conquer the land from the Emorites and Yosef will get a bigger share than his brothers.⁵⁴ 
• Bereshit 49:26 – Yaakov blesses Yosef, "בִּרְכֹת אָבִיךָ גָּבְרוּ עַל בִּרְכֹת הוֹרַי". Ibn Ezra and Radak suggest that Yaakov refers to the blessings given to Yosef by his father, which "will surpass" those he received from his own parents.⁵⁵
• Shemot 12:17 – When Hashem tells Moshe about Chag HaMatzot and the mitzvah to eat matzah, he explains, "כִּי בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה הוֹצֵאתִי אֶת צִבְאוֹתֵיכֶם". As this command is relayed to Moshe before the nation has left Egypt, Ibn Ezra notes that one must understand the word "הוֹצֵאתִי" to mean "I will take out" in the future.⁵⁶
• Shemot 15:13 – In the "Song of the Sea", Moshe prays, "נָחִיתָ בְחַסְדְּךָ עַם זוּ גָּאָלְתָּ נֵהַלְתָּ בְעׇזְּךָ אֶל נְוֵה קׇדְשֶׁךָ".  As he appears to be speaking of Hashem's leading the people to Israel,⁵⁷ many commentators suggest that the verbs of the verse  refer to either the present or future.⁵⁸
• Esther 4:16 – Esther tells Mordechai that she will go to the king uninvited, "וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָבַדְתִּי אָבָדְתִּי".  Many commentators suggest that either one or both verbs express the future, for Esther is speaking of the possibility that she might die, not that she has already perished.
• Yeshayahu – Radak notes many examples in the book, including: 2:9, 2:11, 4:4, 6:11, 14:24, 24:14, 28:2, 40:7, and others. Abarbanel, too, notes many cases in the book, including Yeshayahu 5:30, 25:2, 26:6, and 40:5. Radak explains that the prevalence should not be surprising for:  "וכמוהו רבים בדברי הנבואה ברוב".
• Tehillim – Here, too, Radak (and others) notes many examples, including 4:2, 7:16, 2:3, 22: 22, 31:6, 32:5, 36:13, 41:13, 51:2, 57:7, and more.
• Other examples – Bereshit 15:18,⁵⁹ Shemot 10:3,⁶⁰ Bemidbar 21:34,⁶¹ Devarim 26:3,⁶² Devarim 34:1, Devarim 34:5, Yehoshua 4:24,⁶³ Shemuel I 1:28, Yirmeyahu 23:19,⁶⁴ Yirmeyahu 46:23,  Yechezkel 20:15, Eikhah 3:56-61⁶⁵

Future for Past

Many commentators note that Tanakh sometimes employs a future (or imperfect) tense verb, even though it is referring to an action done in the past. However, as above, in many cases the true intent of the verse and its tense is debated.

I. Verbs following "אז" – The phenomenon is especially prevalent when a verb follows the adverb "אז‎".⁶⁶ Examples include:  Shemot 15:1,⁶⁷ Bemidbar 21:17, Devarim 4:41, Yehoshua 8:30, Yehoshua 10:12, Yehoshua 22:1,⁶⁸ Shofetim 5:11, Melakhim I 3:16, Melakhim I 8:1, Melakhim I 11:7, Melakhim II 12:18, Melakhim II 15:16. Commentators debate whether in such cases the past or future is meant:

• Past tense implied – Ibn Ezra, Radak, and Ramban assert that in cases such as these, though the verb is cast is the future (imperfect) tense, the past is implied. Thus, for example, the verse "אָז יָשִׁיר מֹשֶׁה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" (Shemot 15:1) should be translated, "Then Moshe and the Children of Israel sang". According to them, this is simply "דרך הלשון", with ibn Ezra⁶⁹ noting that the same phenomenon exists in Arabic.
• Future intent relayed – Rashi is more hesitant to suggest that the verb form is fluid and instead suggests that in such verses, the verb implies future intent.⁷⁰ Thus, for instance, Shemot 15:1 would read: "Then (when crossing the sea), Moshe thought he would sing".⁷¹
• Future action described – Sanhedrin 91b goes further in maintaining a pure future tense meaning of the verbs, asserting that in such cases the verse hints to the fact that the action spoken of will be done in the future as well.⁷²  Thus regarding Shemot 15:1, they suggest that after resurrection, Moshe will again sing the Song of the Sea.⁷³

 II. Examples where verbs do not follow "אז"

• Bereshit 49:6 – In his parting words to Shimon and Levi, Yaakov tells them, "בְּסֹדָם אַל תָּבֹא נַפְשִׁי".  According to Targum Onkelos, Radak, and R. Avraham b. HaRambam, despite the future (imperfect) form of "תָּבֹא", Yaakov is referring to the fact that he had not been a part of their plot to massacre Shekhem.  Others maintain the future meaning, presenting Yaakov as stating that he does not want to be part of their council in the future. ⁷⁴
• Shofetim 2:1 – " וַיֹּאמֶר אַעֲלֶה אֶתְכֶם מִמִּצְרַיִם וָאָבִיא אֶתְכֶם... וָאֹמַר". See Radak and Hoil Moshe who understand the verbs as if written in the past tense, but contrast Rashi who posits that future intent is implied.
• Shemuel I 25:28 "כִּי עָשֹׂה יַעֲשֶׂה י"י לַאדֹנִי בַּיִת נֶאֱמָן...  וְרָעָה לֹא תִמָּצֵא בְךָ מִיָּמֶיךָ".  See Radak that the word "" should be understood as if written in the past tense, with Avigayil highlighting how in David's whole past (מִיָּמֶיךָ) he had not done evil.  Cf. R"Y Kara and Malbim who reads this as a wish for the future (though the wording of "מִיָּמֶיךָ" might then be difficult).
• Yeshayahu 8:2 – "וְאָעִידָה לִּי עֵדִים נֶאֱמָנִים".  See one opinion in Ibn Ezra that the meaning: is "I took witnesses to me". Others suggest to read the word as if written "והעידה" or as a simple future (see other opinions in Ibn Ezra)
• Yeshayahu 41:2 – "יִקְרָאֵהוּ לְרַגְלוֹ יִתֵּן לְפָנָיו גּוֹיִם וּמְלָכִים יַרְדְּ " See Radak that all the verbs should be read as if in the past tense (as the verse is speaking of what had been done for Avraham). He raises the possibility that the verse nonetheless employs the future tense to hint that other righteous will merit the same in the future.
• Other examples – Melakhim I 21:6,⁷⁵ Yeshayahu 51:2,⁷⁶ Tehillim 73:17,⁷⁷ Tehillim 103:7⁷⁸, Tehillim 106:17,19.⁷⁹

Habitual Action

Habitual action can be expressed using either the imperfect or perfect.

• Continuous or habitual action that continues into the future is often expressed using the imperfect:
  

• Shemot 1:12 (וְכַאֲשֶׁר יְעַנּוּ אֹתוֹ כֵּן יִרְבֶּה וְכֵן יִפְרֹץ) –This might be understood as: "As they would oppress them, so they would multiply and so they would spread out."
• Bemidbar 9:19-21 ("עַל פִּי י"י יַחֲנוּ וְעַל פִּי י"י יִסָּעוּ...  וְנַעֲלָה הֶעָנָן בַּבֹּקֶר וְנָסָעוּ") – From context, the various verbs in these verses do not refer to a one time action in the future, but speak of how the nation would habitually travel.
• Yeshayahu 6:2 ("בִּשְׁתַּיִם יְכַסֶּה פָנָיו וּבִשְׁתַּיִם יְכַסֶּה רַגְלָיו וּבִשְׁתַּיִם יְעוֹפֵף") – All these verbs appear to refer to a continuous deed rather than a future action.⁸⁰
• Shemuel I 1:5 ("וּלְחַנָּה יִתֵּן מָנָה אַחַת אַפָּיִם") – This might be understood to mean: "And he would give her..." (meaning, yearly at the feast in Shiloh, Elkanah would give Channah an extra portion).⁸¹
• Shemuel I 2:19 – See Radak on "וּמְעִיל קָטֹן תַּעֲשֶׂה לּוֹ אִמּוֹ".

• Sometimes, though, habitual action is expressed using the regular past tense form of the verb (without a vav conversive, but with the verb preceding the subject)^.82 In such cases, the emphasis might be on the fact that the action is continuing from the past.

• Shemuel I 1:3 (וְעָלָה הָאִישׁ הַהוּא מֵעִירוֹ מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה) – This implies that the man would habitually vןsit Shiloh, year after year.
• Bereshit 37:2 (יוֹסֵף בֶּן שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה הָיָה רֹעֶה אֶת אֶחָיו) – The verse states Yosef would regularly shepherd with his brother.

Combined Forms

At times Tanakh combines two tenses in one word:

• Devarim 33:16  "תָּבוֹאתָה לְרֹאשׁ יוֹסֵף" – See Minchah Belulah that this word combines the past and future forms.
• Yirmeyahu 22:23 "‏[יֹשַׁבְתְּ]‏‏ (ישבתי) בַּלְּבָנוֹן [מְקֻנַּנְתְּ] (מקננתי) בָּאֲרָזִים" – See Radak that this might be a combining of the present and past tenses, to say: "you have done this in the past and continue to do so in the present".

¹ See discussion below regarding the meaning of the "perfect" tense and how it relates to the "past" tense.

² This is also known as the "vav-conversive".

³ See examples below.

⁴ It would be translated as "he had done..." rather than "he did".

⁵ Contrast this reading with that of Ibn EzraDevarim 31:1Bereshit Second Commentary 4:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra and R"Y Bekhor ShorBereshit 4:1About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor who do not attribute a past perfect meaning to the verb.  They assume that the conception was a reaction to the expulsion from the garden, taking place afterwards and not beforehand. Rashi's reading might be polemically motivated, a reaction to Christian positions which connect sexual desire to the sin in the Garden of Eden.

⁶ Alternatively, one might suggest that in this case the past perfect is meant to highlight a contrast between Sarah's negative fate (וַתֻּקַּח הָאִשָּׁה בֵּית פַּרְעֹה) and Avraham's positive one.

⁷ He picks up on the language of "he had" rather than "he was given" to suggest that Avraham earned this on his own, and emphasizes that this was all even before Paroh took her.

⁸ Cf. R. Y. S. ReggioBereshit 18:17About R. Yitzchak Shemuel Reggio and the discussion below that the verbal construction highlights that the verse serves as a contrast to the previous one in which we are told that the visitors headed to destroy Sedom. Here, in contrast, Hashem shares his plans with Avraham, giving him an opportunity to pray that it not be destroyed.

⁹ See below that one might alternatively suggest that the past perfect is a marker of contrast, highlighting how each party fulfilled their side of the contract.

¹⁰ See also Rashbam on those verses.

¹¹ In this case, the fact of Yosef's sale has already been mentioned, and this verse serves to resume the narrative after the intervening story of Yehuda and Tamar.  See below that others suggest that the grammatical form is used to contrast the descent of Yehuda described in the previous chapter and the descent of Yosef here.

¹² Verse 2 just mentions that news reached Paroh's house but does not elaborate on Paroh's reaction the news.

¹³ See ShadalShemot 11:10About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, "הואיל וכאן נשלם ספור שליחות משה ואהרן אל פרעה, כי לא באו עוד לפניו, אמר זה דרך חתימה".

¹⁴ One might alternatively suggest that the construction is utilized to show a contrast between the fate of the Egyptians and the fate of the Israelites, as per the examples below.

¹⁵ According to Rashi, the verse shares that Hashem had told Moshe to go up to the mountain, not after the Decalogue was given but earlier, during the days of preparation before Revelation.  See below that others disagree, and suggest that the past perfect opening "וְאֶל מֹשֶׁה אָמַר" serves to contrast the previous set of commands which were aimed at all of Israel ("וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם") with this one which is aimed at Moshe alone.

¹⁶ See below, that alternatively, it might serve to highlight the contrast in punishment inflicted upon the 250 men and on Datan and Aviram..

¹⁷ However, one might question if this is really consistent with the past perfect formulation as in this case the subject follows the verb.

¹⁸ MalbimBereshit 21:1Melakhim I 21:29About R. Meir Leibush Weiser alludes to this possibility in his comments on Melakhim I 21:29, where he suggests that due to Achav's releasing of Ben Hadad at the end of the battle, Israel was supposed to be punished by being given into the hands of Chazael. If so, the events of the chapter precede Hashem's directions to Eliyahu in Chapter 19 to appoint Chazael as king over Aram and overlapped with the drought discussed in the earlier chapters.

¹⁹ The verse states "בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה בָּא נֹחַ... אֶל הַתֵּבָה".  See R. D"Z Hoffmann that this past perfect formulation expresses that the action had already happened; Noach, his family and the animals had all already entered the ark before the rain began to fall.

²⁰ See Rashi that the language of "וַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ הָלַךְ אֵלָיו מִגְּרָר" teaches that Avimelekh had gone to to make the covenant with Yitzchak before Yitzchak's servants had dug the well mentioned previously, and the two events (his making of a covenant and their finding the well) overlap in time. [Thus, according to Rashi the servant's later statement in verse 32 "we have found water" does not refer to yet another well, but the very one just mentioned.]

²¹ The verse states, "וְרִבְקָה אָמְרָה אֶל יַעֲקֹב" . See R. D"Z Hoffmann (and Shadal on verse 5) that Rivka might have spoken to Yaakov even before Esav left to hunt.

²² See, however, S. Talmon, "The Presentation of Synchroneity and Simultaneity in Biblical Narrative", Scripta Hierosolymitana 27 (1978):115-116, who claims that this pattern (yqtl-qtl) implies simultaneity and that Kayin and Hevel brought heir sacrifices at the same time. [He is reading the past perfect to mean "and he had..." as in the first approach discussed above.] He reads several of the following examples in the same manner.

²³ See, though, above that HaKetav VeHaKabbalahBereshit 4:1Bereshit 25:34About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg instead assumes that in this verse the form is an indicator of achronology.

²⁴ See above that, alternatively, it is used to remind the reader that this had already happened two chapters ago, and the text is simply resuming that narrative.

²⁵ Cf. Rashi above who might suggest that the form is an indicator of achronology.

²⁶ As such, they use terms such as "עבר" (past) or "עתיד" (future).

²⁷ See the discussion below that many commentators assume that Biblical Hebrew may not include a distinct "present tense".

²⁸ RambanShemot 15:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman (Shemot 15:1) attempts to explain the phenomenon by suggesting that when telling a story, a speaker often puts himself in a certain time frame and tells the events from that perspective.  He might place himself in the midst of the event, and present what happened in the present, or he might place himself before it and tell of it in the future. Sometimes, too, even though an incident has not yet happened, he views the episode from the perspective of its expected conclusion and tells of the event in the past. See Hoil Moshe (on Yehoshua 8:30Yehoshua 8:30About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi and Shofetim 2:1) similarly, but he limits his comments to usage of the future to describe the present or past.

²⁹ For an extensive discussion of both the perfect and imperfect tenses, see Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar.

³⁰ Thus, a verb might be formulated in the perfect tense even though the future is implied, while a verb formulated in the imperfect might really refer to an action done in the past. Similarly, the present tense might be indicated when either the perfect or imperfect is used.

³¹ According to modern scholarship, this is somewhat of a misnomer, but it reflects the way many commentators view the expression of time in Biblical Hebrew. The discussion that follows will often refer to the "past" or "future" tense when speaking of the "perfect" or "imperfect", using the terminology employed by the commentators being discussed.

³² See, for example, Bereshit 24:31, "וַיֹּאמֶר... לָמָּה תַעֲמֹד בַּחוּץ", which translates as: "He said... why are you standing" (not: "why will you stand") or Bereshit 22:12 "עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה", which means "Now I know" (not: "Now I knew").

³³ See his comments on Shemot 15:1, Yeshayahu 1:21, 51:17,  Iyyov 3:2, and Tehillim 1:1.

³⁴ See his comments on Iyyov 3:2. Rashi Bereshit 29:3 explains why one can express the present tense in either the past or future, "כן כל לשון הווה משתנה לדבר בלשון עתיד ובלשון עבר, לפי שכל דבר ההווה תמיד היה כבר ועתיד להיות". See Hoil Moshe Shofetim 2:1 similarly: "וההווה הוא מחובר תמיד מעבר ועתיד, ד"מ האומר "אני כותב" כאילו יאמר "כתבתי כבר ואכתוב עוד" שאם אין לו לכתוב עוד יאמר "כתבתי" ואם עדין לא התחיל לכתוב יאמר "אכתוב" ע"כ לא בא בלה"ק זמן הווה, רק ישתמשו להוראתו בכנוי ובינוני פועל או פעול, או פעם בעבר ופעם בעתיד כפי מתק הלשון אל אוזן שומעת; "
.

³⁵ Radak, though, also brings the possibility that already with the creation of vegetation Hashem "had given" it to man as food, creating it with that purpose in mind.

³⁶ See, though, R. Saadia and Ramban who suggests that though Hashem is first making the rainbow into a symbol now, the rainbow had always existed and had been "placed" in the clouds already at creation. The dispute might relate to larger philosophical questions of whether nature is immutable or not.  See Miracles for discussion.

³⁷ Cf. Chizkuni and Ramban who suggest that Avraham is saying that he had already consecrated a portion to God, referring to the tithe he had given in verse 20.  [Ramban notes that the language of "תרומת יד" is often used in the context of consecration.] Accordingly, Avraham is saying that though he has consecrated a portion to Hashem, he will not take anything for himself.
One could alternatively disconnect the verse from the one that follows and suggest that Avraham is saying,"I raised my hand (in battle) for God".

³⁸ A few verses earlier the same phenomenon occurs.  The angel cries out: "עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה", which means "Now I know" (not: "Now I knew"). In this case, due to the word "now", there is no dispute as to the verse's tense.

³⁹ See Rashbam and R. D"Z Hoffmann on verse 11, and Radak and R. Avraham b. HaRambam on verse 13.

⁴⁰ Some, though, attempt to maintain the past tense formulation by slightly recasting each of Efron and Avraham's words. Thus, Rashi suggests that Efron is saying "It is as if I have given the field" and Avraham is saying, "I have prepared the money for the field."  See also R. Saadia and Sforno who explain similarly.

⁴¹ See Chizkuni on "כִּי עַל כֵּן רָאִיתִי".

⁴² See Ibn Ezra first commentary that the future "אז ישיר" refers to the present.  See, though, the discussion below, that many others (and Ibn Ezra himself in his second commentary) suggest that it expresses the past tense.

⁴³ See Rashi that the verbs in these verses ( "יִרְגָּזוּן", "נֵהַלְתָּ בְעׇזְּךָ") should be understood as if cast in the present tense.  See also Shadal on verse 14, that both the past and future, "שָׁמְעוּ עַמִּים יִרְגָּזוּן" together connote the present: "עבר ועתיד שניהם להורות על ההווה, כי המשורר מצייר הדבר כאילו הוא עתה נגד עיניו"

⁴⁴ See Chizknui on  "גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נׇכְרִיָּה".

⁴⁵ Yitro says, "עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי גָדוֹל י״י", presumably meaning "Now I know...", not: "now, I knew". Cf. Rashi who writes, "מכירו היתי לשעבר, ועכשיו ביותר".

⁴⁶ See Reconstructed Rashbam that most of the verbs and laments in the scroll, despite their past tense formulation, should be understood as if cast in the present. Thus, for example, "אֵיכָה יָשְׁבָה בָדָד" should read: "How she sits alone", not: "how she sat alone".

⁴⁷ See Hoil Moshe Bereshit 48:22 who notes a similar phenomenon in Italian, referring to the tense as "עתיד עבר".  He writes, "משמש כאן לזמן הנקרא בלשונותינו עתיד עבר, המצייר העתיד כאלו כבר עבר".

⁴⁸ Many commentators note this. See, for example, Rashi Bereshit 15:18, Ibn Ezra Shemot 12:17 and Shemot 15:13 (and elsewhere), Radak Bereshit 49:26 (and in many other places) ,  R. Bachya Devarim 34:1, Ibn Kaspi Yechezkel 20:15, Ralbag Bereshit 48:22,  Abarbanel Devarim 34:5, introduction to Yeshayahu (and elsewhere), Hoil Moshe Bereshit 48:22, Shemot 15:13, Shadal (as cited by Hoil Moshe) on Eikhah 3:56.

⁴⁹ Abarbanel also notes the phenomenon very often, mentioning over thirty times that Tanakh employs "עבר במקום עתיד" or that it casts "עתיד בלשון עבר".

⁵⁰ See Shadal and R. D"Z Hoffmann.  [Rashbam and Radak also suggest that the tense should be converted, but to the present rather than the future.]

⁵¹ It is possible that she formulates it in the past tense because of her confidence that this will indeed occur. Alternatively, one might suggest that the baby was not named immediately upon birth and women had already congratulated Leah.

⁵² It is possible, though, that despite the text's silence, Yosef had indeed fathered others who are simply not mentioned. (See Ralbag).

⁵³ See Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Radak and others.

⁵⁴ Cf. Rashi and the "derash" brought by Radak (and similarly R"Y Bekhor Shor) that the verse refers to the city Shekhem which had already been captured by Yaakov's sons.

⁵⁵ Cf. Rashi who explains that Yaakov is saying that the blessings he received surpassed those received by Avraham and Yitzchak.

⁵⁶ Alternatively, Ibn Ezra posits that the verses simply appear out of chronological order and were really said later, after they were taken out.

⁵⁷ Or, perhaps to Mt Sinai or the Beit HaMIkdash

⁵⁸ See, for example, Rashi, Rashbam and Shadal who suggest that the present is implied and Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni, Ralbag and Hoil Moshe who suggest that the future is implied. Hoil Moshe explains the choice to nonetheless cast the verbs in the past: "אבל הנביא מובטח שתקובל תפלתו, ומצייר הדבר כאלו היה כבר".  Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor, Ramban and Sforno, however, who suggests that it is a past tense verb referring to past events such as Hashem's leading the nation across Yam Suf.

⁵⁹ See Rashi and Radak regarding Hashem's promise, "לְזַרְעֲךָ נָתַתִּי אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת," noting that, though it is a promise regarding the future (I will give)  it is formulated in the past since one can be confident that it will come to fruition. Compare Bemidbar 21:34, "כִּי בְיָדְךָ נָתַתִּי אֹתוֹ".

⁶⁰ See Abarbanel on "עַד מָתַי מֵאַנְתָּ", translating it as, "Until when will you refuse".

⁶¹ Hashem tells Moshe, "כִּי בְיָדְךָ נָתַתִּי אֹתוֹ", meaning "I will give him into your hand".  Though the future is implied, Hashem speaks in the past tense since Hashem's promises are assured to be fulfilled.

⁶² See Abarbanel on "הִגַּדְתִּי הַיּוֹם".

⁶³ See Radak.

⁶⁴ See Radak pointing out how it is common to word prophecies using the past tense even though the future is implied "for Hashem's word in a prophecy is ad if fulfilled".

⁶⁵ See Lekach Tov and Shadal (as cited by Hoil Moshe on verse 56) that all the verbs in these verses ("קוֹלִי שָׁמָעְתָּ", "קָרַבְתָּ", "רַבְתָּ" etc.), despite their past tense formulation, should be understood as a request for the future. They are cast in the past tense only due to the poet's deep belief in Hashem's ultimate salvation, for it seems to him as if his cries have already been answered.

⁶⁶ Often, the word "אז" will refer to an event which has already occurred, yet the following verb is cast in the future tense as opposed to the expected past tense.

⁶⁷ The verse reads: "אָז יָשִׁיר מֹשֶׁה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל". See the discussion below. See also R"Y Bekhor Shor who suggests that the verb "ישיר" is neither past nor future, but causative, "Moshe caused others to sing".

⁶⁸ See Rid there.

⁶⁹ See his second commentary.

⁷⁰ See Ramban on Shemot 15:1 who questions Rashi by pointing to many examples where Tanakh employs a future tense verb but the verse cannot sustain a meaning of "future intent". However, many of Ramban's counter examples are verses which do not employ the adverb "אז" and Rashi might be limiting himself only to verbs which follow "אז".

⁷¹ Rashi supports this reading by noting that afterwards, when Moshe actually sang, the verse repeats "וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֵאמֹר" (which would otherwise be redundant).

⁷² They suggest this regarding only Shemot  15:1 and Yehoshua 8:30. Rashi, however, (Shemot 15:1) asserts that the sages mean to apply this reading to many such cases (excepting Melakhim I 11:7). Indeed, many of the verses can sustain such a reading, but not all (see, for example, Melakhim II 11:12 or 15:16).

⁷³ Cf. Chizkuni on Shemot 15:1, who asserts that the verse is cast in the future to teach that the Song of the Sea was to be sung in all future generations, daily.

⁷⁴ See Rashi and Rashbam, with the latter noting that the word "אַל" (let not) always precedes a future tense verb.

⁷⁵ See Radak that the verse means: "for I spoke to Navot..."

⁷⁶ See Radak on "וַאֲבָרְכֵהוּ וְאַרְבֵּהו ".

⁷⁷ See Rashi and Ibn Ezra on "עַד אָבוֹא אֶל מִקְדְּשֵׁי אֵל", that the intent is "until I came".

⁷⁸ See Ibn Ezra and Radak on "יוֹדִיעַ דְּרָכָיו לְמֹשֶׁה", that the verse reads as if written "הודיע". Compare Rashi who suggeststhat the present is implied (מודיע).

⁷⁹ See Radak on "יַעֲשׂוּ עֵגֶל בְּחֹרֵב", explaining: "they made a calf..."

⁸⁰ See Ibn Ezra on Shemot 15:1.

⁸¹ Alternatively, the future here stands for the past (Radak).

⁸² In this it differs from "עבר מהופך" formulation discussed above in which the subject precedes the verb.