Grammar:Tenses in Tanakh/0

Tenses in Tanakh

עבר מהופך

Tanakh normally expresses the perfect (past) tense by using the vav conversive 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 commentators¹ 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").² 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.³
• 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 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".  R. D"Z Hoffmann Bereshit 18:17About R. David Zvi Hoffmannsuggests that the past perfect form teaches that Hashem had already decided to share His plans with Avraham.  This was not a decision which was made only after Avraham's hospitable actions.
• 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.⁴ According to his reading, Yaakov did not pay for the birthright with a pot of soup, but with money.⁵  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).⁶
• 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 2.⁷  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.⁸
• 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.]
• 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 19.⁹
• 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.
• 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.¹⁰
• 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 to 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.¹¹
• 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.]
• 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".‎¹²
• Bereshit 14:17-18 - N. Lebowitz suggests that these verses employ the past perfect 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 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".
• 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 Lava'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 past perfect "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.
• 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 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.
• 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 highlights the contrast in punishment.
• Shemuel I 21:1 – The verse depicts the parting of ways between David and Yonatan by using the this grammatical form, וַיָּקׇם וַיֵּלַךְ וִיהוֹנָתָן בָּא הָעִיר".
• Melakhim I 12:29 – This verse similarly uses the perfect/ perfect pattern to contrast the locations of the two calves.set up by Yerovam: "וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת הָאֶחָד בְּבֵית אֵל וְאֶת הָאֶחָד נָתַן בְּדָן".

Tense Reversals

Often in Tanakh, verb tenses are fluid.  A verb might be formulated in the past tense while the future is implied, while a future tense verb might really refer to an action done in the past. Similarly, the present tense might be indicated when either the past or future is used. Ramban¹³ attempts to explains 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.¹⁴ 

This fluidity in verb tense creates ambiguity and commentators often dispute what the intended tense of the verb is. Below are several categories of tense reversals with many examples of each, and references to commentators varying understandings of each.

Past or Future for Present

Commentators note that sometimes Tanakh employs a past or future tense when the  present is implied. Ibn Ezra Iyyov 3:2¹⁵ explains that in Biblical Hebrew there really is no "present tense" and, thus, it will always be expressed instead in either the past or future:¹⁶  Some examples follow:

I. Past for Present

• 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. 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.
• 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 tense as God appears to first be creating a rainbow and setting the sign as He speaks. 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.¹⁷
• 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, Rashbam 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. Cf. Chizkuni and Ramban who suggest that Avraham is saying that he had already consecrated a portion to God,¹⁸ referring to the tithe he had given in verse 20.¹⁹
• Bereshit 22:16 – After Avraham passes the test of the Akeidah, the angel states, "בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי.. כִּי יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה.. כִּי בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ." Rashi and Radak note that the angel is swearing in God's name in the present, despite the past tense formulation.
• 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 commentators²⁰ suggest that their words should be understood as if written in the present (or, perhaps future) tense. 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"²¹  and Avraham is saying, "I have prepared the money for the field."²²
• Other examples²³ –: Bereshit 33:10,²⁴ Shemot 18:3,²⁵ Shemot 18:11²⁶

Past for Future

Commentators note that sometimes Tanakh casts something in the past tense even though the future is implied.²⁷  This phenomenon is prevalent in prophecy (and prayer) where the past tense formulations expresses the speaker's confidence that the prophecy (or request) will be fulfilled.²⁸ 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".‎²⁹

• Bereshit 30:13 – In explaining the name Asher, Leah says: "כִּי אִשְּׁרוּנִי בָּנוֹת".  Oneklos and others³⁰ suggest that Leah is expressing confidence that now "women will bless me", not that they had already done so.³¹  Alternatively, one might suggest that the baby was not named immediately upon birth and women had already congratulated Leah.
• 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.  It is possible, though, that despite the text's silence, Yosef had indeed fathered others who are simply not mentioned.³²  
• Bereshit 48:22 – Yaakov tells Yosef that he will give him "שְׁכֶם אַחַד עַל אַחֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר לָקַחְתִּי מִיַּד הָאֱמֹרִי". Many commentators³³ 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. 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.  
• 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. Cf. Rashi who explains that Yaakov is saying that the blessings he received surpassed those received by Avraham and Yizchak.  
• 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. Alternatively, he suggests that the verses simply appear out of chronological order and were really said later, after they were taken out.
• 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,³⁴ many commentators suggest that the verbs of the verse  refer to either the present or future.Cf. Seforno, however, who suggests that it is a past tense verb referring to Hashem's leading the nation across Yam Suf.
• Esther 4:16 – Esther tells Mordechai that she will go to the king uninvited, "וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָבַדְתִּי אָבָדְתִּי".  Many commentaors suggest that either one or both verbs should be understood as if written in 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 notes many examples, including 4:2, 7:16, 2:3, 31:6, 32:5, 36:13, 41:13, 51:2, 57:7, and more.

Future for Past

Many commentators note that Tanakh sometimes employs a future tense, even though it is referring to an action done in the past. This often occurs when a verb follows the adverb "אז‎,"³⁵ but the phenomenon is not limited to such cases. As above, in many of these cases, too, the verse is ambiguous and commentators disagree as to the intended tense.

I. Verbs Preceded by "אז"

• There are many cases in which the word "אז" refers to an event which has already occurred, yet the following verb is cast in the future tense. Several general approaches have been suggested to explain such phrases:

• Past tense implied– Ibn Ezra and Radak assert that in these cases, though the verb is cast is the future tense, the past is implied.  Thus, for example, the verse "אָז יָשִׁיר מֹשֶׁה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" (Shemot 15:1) should be translated, "Then Moshe and Benei Yisrael sang".
• Future intent relayed – Rashi, in contrast, suggests that in such verses, the verb implies future intent. Thus, for instance, Shemot 15:1 would read: "Then (when crossing the sea), Moshe thought he would sing".³⁶
• Future action described – Sanhedrin 91b, in contrast, maintains the 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.³⁷  Thus regarding Shemot 15:1, they suggest that after resurrection, Moshe will again sing the Song of the Sea.³⁸

• Below is a list of verses in which "אז" is followed by a future tense verb, and commentators who suggest that the past is implied:

• Shemot 15:1 – See discussion above. ³⁹
• Bemidbar 21:17
• Devarim 4:41
• Yehoshua 8:30 –
• Yehoshua 10:12
• Yehoshua 22:1 –  See Rid there.
• Melakhim I 3:16
• Melakhim I 8:1
• Melakhim I 11:7
• Melakhim II 12:18
• Melakhim II 15:16

II. Other Cases of verbs cast in the future where the past might be implied:

• Shofetim 2:1 (Radak) -
• Shemuel I 1:28 (Rid)
• Devarim 3:8
• Devarim 33:3
• Melakhim I 21:6 (Radak)
• Yeshayahu 8:2
• Yeshayahu 14:11
• Yeshayahu 41:2 - Radak
• Yeshayahu 51:2
• Yoel 4:3
• Tehillim 73:17
• Tehillim 103:7
• –

 

¹ See examples below.

² It would be translated as "he had done..." rather than "he did".

³ 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.

⁴ For other understandings of the past perfect form in this verse, see below.

⁵ See also Rashbam on those verses.

⁶ 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.

⁷ Verse 2 just mentions that news reached Paroh's house but does not elaborate on Paroh's reaction the news.

⁸ 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".

⁹ 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 explain the verbal construct to

¹⁰ However, one might question if this is really consistent with the past perfect formulation as in this case the subject follows the verb.

¹¹ 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.

¹² 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.

¹³ See his comments on Shemot 15:1.

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ See also his comments on Shemot 15:1, Yeshayahu 1:21, 51:17 and Tehillim 1:1.

¹⁶ He writes:  "ידוע כי אין בלשון הקודש סימן שיורה על הזמן האמצעי ואין בלשונם חוץ מעתיד ועבר, וכל מה שתמצא באיוב שהוא לשון עתיד הוא בינוני כמו עבר."  See the discussion in Hoil Moshe Shofetim 2:1 as well.See also Rashi Bereshit 29:3 who 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".

¹⁷ The dispute might relate to larger philosophical questions of whether nature is immutable or not.  See Miracles for discussion.

¹⁸ Ramban notes that the language of "תרומת יד" is often used in the context of consecration.

¹⁹ Avraham is thus 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".

²⁰ See Rashbam and R. D"Z Hoffmann on verse 11, and Radak and R. Avraham b. HaRambam on verse 13.

²¹ See Seforno similarly who presents Efron as saying, "I have made up my mind to give..."

²² See also R. Saadia who precedes him in raising this reading.

²³ In each of these, at least some commentators suggest that the past is used to refer to the present.

²⁴ See Chizkuni on "כִּי עַל כֵּן רָאִיתִי"

²⁵ See Chizknui on  "גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נׇכְרִיָּה".

²⁶ See Rashi on "עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי".

²⁷ 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".

²⁸ Many commentators note this. See, for example, Ibn Ezra Shemot 12:17 and Shemot 15:13 (and many other places), Radak Bereshit 49:26,  R. Bachya Devarim 34:1, Ibn Kaspi Yechezkel 20:15, Ralbag Bereshit 48:22,  Abarbanel Devarim 34:5, introduction to Yeshayahu (and many other places), Hoil Moshe Bereshit 48:22, Shemot 15:13.

²⁹ Abarbanel also notes the phenomenon very often, mentioning over thirty times that Tanakh employ "עבר במקום עתיד" or that it casts "עתיד בלשון עבר".

³⁰ 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.]

³¹ It is possible that she formulates it in the past tense because of her confidence that this will indeed occur.

³² See Ralbag.

³³ See Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Radak and others.

³⁴ Or, perhaps to Mt Sinai or the Beit HaMIkdash

³⁵ See Ibn Ezra second commentary Shemot 15:1, Radak on Yehoshua 8:30, Hoil Moshe on Yehoshua 8:20,  and R. Hirsch on Shemot 15:1. Ibn Ezra notes that this same phenomenon exists in Arabic.

³⁶ Rashi supports this reading by noting that afterwards, when Moshe actually sang, the verse repeats "וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֵאמֹר" (which would otherwise be redundant).

³⁷ 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 all 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).

³⁸ 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.

³⁹ R"Y Bekhor Shor, instead, suggests that the verb is neither past nor future, but causative, "Moshe caused others to sing".