Why Say It Twice? Double Verbs in Biblical Speech

My thanks to Ed Greenstein and especially Marc Brettler for helpful suggestions. In addition to sources cited below, the following studies inform this article: Andrea Beltrama and Andreas Trotzke, “Conveying Emphasis for Intensity: Lexical and Syntactic Strategies,” Language and Linguistics Compass 13.7 (2019): e12343; Eran Cohen, “Paronomastic Infinitive in Old Babylonian,” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 38 (2003–2004): 105–112; Holger Gzella, “Emphasis or Assertion? Remarks on the Paronomastic Infinitive in Hebrew,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 67.5–6 (2010): 488–498; and S. J. P. K. (Fanie) Riekert, “The Struct Patterns of the Paronomastic and Co-ordinated Infinitives Absolute in Genesis,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 7 (1979): 69–83.  

All English translations are offered only for their illustrative and contrastive value.

Translations fortify, augment, or expand the scope of the main verb. But often, a translation does not register the infinitive at all; Fox always does. On the latter, see Everett Fox, “Torah in Translation: Rendering the Story of Joseph in English,” TheTorah (2018).

Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary (Norton, 2019), 1.338.

Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses (Schocken, 1995) and The Early Prophets (Schocken, 2014).

For the reverse order, see, e.g., שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמוֹעַ “Hear, indeed” (Isa 6:9). See Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. Emil Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2nd ed. (Clarendon, 1910) (hereafter GKC), §113r. In the case of a grammatical mismatch, as in מוֹת יוּמָת (above)—a qal infinitive with a hophal finite verb—the infinitive usually appears in the qal.

See Elda Weizman, לקראת בחינה פרגמטית של פרשנות המקרא ושל תרגומיו [“Towards a Pragmatic Examination of Biblical Exegesis and its Translations”], in עיונים בשפה ובמדייה: תקשורת לשיח—קובץ מאמרים לכבודה של פרפ׳ שושנה בלום-קולקה [Communication as Discourse: Studies in Language and Media; A Collection of Essays in Honor of Prof. Shoshana Blum-Kulka], ed. Michal Hamo, Menahem Blondheim, and Tamar Liebes (Magnes, 2012), 56–75 [p. 60]; followed by Rivka Shemesh-Raiskin, “The Inner Object in Biblical Hebrew: Aspects in Its Description and Approaches to Its Interpretation,” Revue biblique 121.4 (2014): 481–505 [p. 496]; and, independently, Yoo-Ki Kim, The Function of the Tautological Infinitive in Classical Biblical Hebrew, Harvard Semitic Studies 60 (Eisenbrauns, 2009), 58.

See Scott N. Callaham, Modality and the Biblical Hebrew Infinitive Absolute, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 71 (Harrassowitz, 2010), 1 [n3], 215. For the exceptions, see Mats Eskhult, “Hebrew Infinitival Paronomasia,” Orientalia Suecana 49 (2000): 27–32 [p. 28].

Christo H. J. van der Merwe, “The Infinitive Absolute Reconsidered: Review Article,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 39.1 (2013): 61–84 [64 n4].  

Takamitsu Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Magnes/Brill, 1975), 92, also quoted in Kim, Tautological Infinitive, 18. Kim applies this understanding to narrative, too (76, 82).

Kim, Tautological Infinitive, 62 n. 142. This statement also applies to legislative monologue.

See Adina Moshavi, Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Finite Clause: A Syntactic and Pragmatic Analysis of Preposing, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 4 (Eisenbrauns, 2010), 19, on “emphasis”; also cited by Galia Hatav, “The Infinitive Absolute and Topicalization of Events in Biblical Hebrew,” in Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Data, Methods, and Analyses, ed. Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 12 (Eisenbrauns, 2017), 207–229 [p. 208].

Israël Eitan, “La répétition de la racine en hébreu,” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 1 (1920–1921): 171–186 [p. 183].

A. B. Davidson, Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax³ (T&T Clark, 1902), §29, Rem. 8; and GKC, §123e.

See the references in the preceding note.

According to R. Elijah (1720–1797), the Vilna Gaon, another example is קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ “holy, holy, holy!” (Isa 6:3):

^{אדרת אליהו ישעיה ו:ג} "קדוש כו׳" – ג׳ פעמים להגדיל הענין שאין למעלה ממנו, כמו מלך מלכי המלכים וכיוצא, כי כפילות ב׳ פעמים הוא בכל הנמצאים כשאחד יותר מחבירו, מלכי ארץ המושלים בכיפה נקרא מלך מלכיא וכל כיוצא בזה.

^{Aderet Eliyahu Isa 6:3} “Holy, etc.”—three times, to amplify the point that nothing is above him, like “the king, king of kings” and such like, since doubling something two times always expresses that one is greater than his fellow, the emperors who rule over (large swaths of) the world, are called kings of kings, and the like. 

Nehama Leibowitz and Moshe Ahrend, פירוש רש״י לתורה עיונים בשיטתו [Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah: Studies in His Methodology] (Open University of Israel, 1990), 1.102–104.

Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar² (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017; 1st ed., Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), §20.2.2.2.

Another example of a negation set between the infinitive absolute and the finite verb occurs in YHWH’s list of divine attributes:

^{שמות לד:ו} וַיַּעֲבֹר יְ־הֹוָה עַל פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא יְ־הֹוָה יְ־הֹוָה אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת.‏ ^לד:ז נֹצֵר חֶסֶד לָאֲלָפִים נֹשֵׂא עָוֺן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה פֹּקֵד עֲוֺן אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וְעַל בְּנֵי בָנִים עַל שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל רִבֵּעִים.‏

^{Exod 34:6} And YHWH passed before his face and called out: YHWH YHWH God, showing-mercy, showing-favor, long-suffering in anger, abundant in loyalty and faithfulness, ^34:7 keeping loyalty to the thousandth [generation], bearing iniquity, rebellion and sin, yet not clearing, clearing [the guilty], calling-to-account the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons and upon sons’ sons, to the third and fourth [generation]! (Fox)

^{Exod 34:6} YHWH passed before him and proclaimed, “YHWH, YHWH, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, ^34:7 keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.” (NRSVue)

The first part of the list ends on a strong note of forgiveness which, in biblical terms, covers a spectrum from perpetual non-forgiveness (Exod 17:16; Deut 25:17), to conditional expungement (Isa 1:18), to a dismissal of charges (Isa 43:25). The construction וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה “yet by no means clearing” (NRSVue) precludes any best-case scenario (so Rashi). The next clause, in fact, mandates a punishment that persists for several generations. Incidentally, the Rabbis split the phrase in two. R. Elazar argues that “He clears” (נַקֵּה) cannot stand on its own, since the verse also says “He does not clear” (לֹא יְנַקֶּה), and vice versa, and concludes:

^{בבלי יומא פו.} מְנַקֶּה הוּא לְשָׁבִין, וְאֵינוֹ מְנַקֶּה לְשֶׁאֵינָן שָׁבִין.

^{b. Yoma 86a} He clears those who repent and does not clear those who do not repent.

On this phrase, see also Harvey N. Bock, “Is God (Un)Forgiving?” TheTorah (2025); and Zev Farber, “Does YHWH Remit Punishment?” TheTorah (2018).

For exceptions, see below with n. 31.

Contra, e.g., Kim, Tautological Infinitive, 75–77, 83. For van der Merwe, the factual reading of the construction is “beyond any dispute” (“Infinitive Absolute Reconsidered,” 80).

It can also denote a unit of information, whether it be true or false.

See also Gen 44:28.

Its final appearance in the story echoes the first. God places no limit on the woman’s punishment:

  ^{בראשית ג:טז} הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ בְּעֶצֶב תֵּלְדִי בָנִים

^{Gen 3:16} I will multiply, multiply your pain [from] your pregnancy; with pains shall you bear children. (Fox)

^{Gen 3:16} I will make your pangs in childbirth exceedingly great; in pain you shall bring forth children… (NRSVue)

This verb phrase thematically correlates with the same construction of the death sentence in Genesis 2:17. Ronald Hendel supports the correlation by noting that labor pangs “are a trope for maximal pain (e.g., Isa 13:8, 21:3; Mic 4:9; Ps 48:9)” and can even lead to death (e.g., Gen 35:16-20; 1 Sam 4:19-22); serious complications can occur at birth, too (e.g., Gen 38:28-30). The double verb construction points to an extreme situation of which the speaker is certain. While the same may be said of the other curses, they are not explicitly flagged for this feature. Ronald Hendel, Genesis 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible 1A (Yale University Press, 2024), 188.

Gideon Goldenberg, “Tautological Infinitive,” Israel Oriental Studies 1 (1971): 36–85 [69–70]; repr. in idem, Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings (Magnes, 1998), 66–115 [99–100].

E.g., Heinrich Ewald, Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes⁸ (Dieterich, 1870), §312a; Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew² (Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 2006), §123e. Contra, e.g., van der Merwe and Kim (cited in n. 21).  

Claus Westermann, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion, 3 vols. (Augsburg, 1984–1986; trans. of, 1974–1982), 1.223.

E.g., Samuel R. Driver, The Book of Genesis with an Introduction and Notes¹⁵ (Methuen, 1948; repr. of 1904), 45.  

See Hendel, Genesis 1-11, 171.

This interpretation has textual support from legal discourse, too. For even when a penalty is expressed with the double verb construction, the law does not mention, entail, or even presuppose a calendar for enactment. It shall occur, at some point, by legal determination. The penalty laid out in Genesis 2:17 follows suit.

Syntax supports this claim. For in only two other verses, negative לֹא “not” precedes the double verb combination.

^{עמוס ט:ח} וְהִשְׁמַדְתִּי אֹתָהּ מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה אֶפֶס כִּי לֹא הַשְׁמֵיד אַשְׁמִיד אֶת בֵּית יַעֲקֹב

^{Amos 9:8} And I will destroy it from the face of the earth. But I will surely not destroy the house of Jacob, said YHWH. (Alter, with adjustments)

^{Amos 9:8} and I will destroy it from the face of the earth—except that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob… (NRSVue)

This passage distinguishes the nation, which will be destroyed, from the people, who will not be destroyed completely. “The nation of Israel (as well as the other immoral nations) shall be destroyed, but the people of Israel shall not be totally eradicated.” Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos, Hermeneia (Fortress, 1991), 285. Another passage is even more markedly categorical:

^{תהלים מט:ח} אָח לֹא פָדֹה יִפְדֶּה אִישׁ לֹא יִתֵּן לֵאלֹהִים כׇּפְרוֹ.‏

^{Ps 49:8} Yet they surely will redeem no man, will not give to God his ransom. (Alter)

^{Ps 49:8} Truly, no ransom avails for one’s life; there is no price one can give to God for it. (NRSVue)

Radak (R. David Kimchi, ca. 1160–1235) comments on the second passage:

^{רד"ק תהלים מט:ח} מה יועיל עשרם ביום המיתה

^{Radak Ps 49:8} What good is their wealth [v. 7] on their dying day?

Even loads of money cannot bail someone from death.