Skip to content

Grammar Analysis: Leviticus 10:16-20

Text

Hebrew (v.16): וְאֵ֣ת׀ שְׂעִ֣יר הַֽחַטָּ֗את דָּרֹ֥שׁ דָּרַ֛שׁ מֹשֶׁ֖ה וְהִנֵּ֣ה שֹׂרָ֑ף וַ֠יִּקְצֹף עַל־אֶלְעָזָ֤ר וְעַל־אִֽיתָמָר֙ בְּנֵ֣י אַהֲרֹ֔ן הַנֹּותָרִ֖ם לֵאמֹֽר׃

Hebrew (v.17): מַדּ֗וּעַ לֹֽא־אֲכַלְתֶּ֤ם אֶת־הַֽחַטָּאת֙ בִּמְקֹ֣ום הַקֹּ֔דֶשׁ כִּ֛י קֹ֥דֶשׁ קָֽדָשִׁ֖ים הִ֑וא וְאֹתָ֣הּ׀ נָתַ֣ן לָכֶ֗ם לָשֵׂאת֙ אֶת־עֲוֹ֣ן הָעֵדָ֔ה לְכַפֵּ֥ר עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֽה׃

Hebrew (v.18): הֵ֚ן לֹא־הוּבָ֣א אֶת־דָּמָ֔הּ אֶל־הַקֹּ֖דֶשׁ פְּנִ֑ימָה אָכֹ֨ול תֹּאכְל֥וּ אֹתָ֛הּ בַּקֹּ֖דֶשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוֵּֽיתִי׃

Hebrew (v.19): וַיְדַבֵּ֨ר אַהֲרֹ֜ן אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֗ה הֵ֣ן הַ֠יֹּום הִקְרִ֨יבוּ אֶת־חַטָּאתָ֤ם וְאֶת־עֹֽלָתָם֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֔ה וַתִּקְרֶ֥אנָה אֹתִ֖י כָּאֵ֑לֶּה וְאָכַ֤לְתִּי חַטָּאת֙ הַיֹּ֔ום הַיִּיטַ֖ב בְּעֵינֵ֥י יְהוָֽה׃

Hebrew (v.20): וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַיִּיטַ֖ב בְּעֵינָֽיו׃ פ

KJV (v.16): And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying,

KJV (v.17): Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?

KJV (v.18): Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded.

KJV (v.19): And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?

KJV (v.20): And when Moses heard that, he was content.

Word-by-Word Parsing

Verse 16

# Word Lemma Parsing Gloss
1 וְ ו Conj and
2 אֵ֣ת את Prep (obj. marker) [direct object]
3 שְׂעִ֣יר שׂעיר Noun.ms.Cst he-goat of
4 הַֽחַטָּ֗את ה + חטאת Art + Noun.fs.Abs the sin-offering
5 דָּרֹ֥שׁ דרשׁ Verb.Qal.InfAbs inquiring (emphatic)
6 דָּרַ֛שׁ דרשׁ Verb.Qal.Perf.3ms he inquired
7 מֹשֶׁ֖ה משׁה PropN.ms.Abs Moses
8 וְהִנֵּ֣ה ו + הנה Conj + Interj and behold
9 שֹׂרָ֑ף שׂרף Verb.Pual.Perf.3ms it had been burned
10 וַיִּקְצֹף ו + קצף Conj + Verb.Qal.Wayq.3ms and he was angry
11 עַל־אֶלְעָזָ֤ר על + אלעזר Prep + PropN.ms.Abs at Eleazar
12 וְעַל־אִֽיתָמָר֙ ו + על + איתמר Conj + Prep + PropN.ms.Abs and at Ithamar
13 בְּנֵ֣י אַהֲרֹ֔ן בן + אהרן Noun.mp.Cst + PropN.ms.Abs sons of Aaron
14 הַנֹּותָרִ֖ם ה + יתר Art + Verb.Niphal.Ptcp.mp.Abs the remaining (ones)
15 לֵאמֹֽר ל + אמר Prep + Verb.Qal.InfCon saying

Verse 17

# Word Lemma Parsing Gloss
1 מַדּ֗וּעַ מדוע Introg why
2 לֹֽא לא Neg not
3 אֲכַלְתֶּ֤ם אכל Verb.Qal.Perf.2mp did you eat
4 אֶת־הַֽחַטָּאת֙ את + ה + חטאת Prep + Art + Noun.fs.Abs the sin-offering
5 בִּמְקֹ֣ום הַקֹּ֔דֶשׁ ב + מקום + ה + קדשׁ Prep + Noun.ms.Cst + Art + Noun.ms.Abs in the place of the holiness
6 כִּ֛י כי Conj for/because
7 קֹ֥דֶשׁ קָֽדָשִׁ֖ים קדשׁ + קדשׁ Noun.ms.Cst + Noun.mp.Abs holiness of holinesses
8 הִ֑וא היא PersPron.3fs she (= it)
9 וְאֹתָ֣הּ ו + את + 3fs Conj + Prep + 3fs suff and it [obj]
10 נָתַ֣ן נתן Verb.Qal.Perf.3ms he gave
11 לָכֶ֗ם ל + 2mp Prep + 2mp suff to you
12 לָשֵׂאת֙ ל + נשׂא Prep + Verb.Qal.InfCon to bear
13 אֶת־עֲוֹ֣ן הָעֵדָ֔ה את + עון + ה + עדה Prep + Noun.ms.Cst + Art + Noun.fs.Abs the iniquity of the congregation
14 לְכַפֵּ֥ר ל + כפר Prep + Verb.Piel.InfCon to make-atonement
15 עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם על + 3mp Prep + 3mp suff upon them
16 לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֽה ל + פנה + יהוה Prep + Noun.mp.Cst + PropN.ms.Abs before YHWH

Verse 18

# Word Lemma Parsing Gloss
1 הֵ֚ן הן Interj behold
2 לֹא לא Neg not
3 הוּבָ֣א בוא Verb.Hophal.Perf.3ms was brought
4 אֶת־דָּמָ֔הּ את + דם + 3fs Prep + Noun.ms.Abs + 3fs suff its blood
5 אֶל־הַקֹּ֖דֶשׁ אל + ה + קדשׁ Prep + Art + Noun.ms.Abs to the holy-place
6 פְּנִ֑ימָה פנימה Adv inward
7 אָכֹ֨ול אכל Verb.Qal.InfAbs eating (emphatic)
8 תֹּאכְל֥וּ אכל Verb.Qal.Impf.2mp you shall eat
9 אֹתָ֛הּ את + 3fs Prep + 3fs suff it
10 בַּקֹּ֖דֶשׁ ב + ה + קדשׁ Prep + Art + Noun.ms.Abs in the holy-place
11 כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר כ + אשׁר Prep + Conj as (I)
12 צִוֵּֽיתִי צוה Verb.Piel.Perf.1s commanded

Verse 19

# Word Lemma Parsing Gloss
1 וַיְדַבֵּ֨ר ו + דבר Conj + Verb.Piel.Wayq.3ms and he spoke
2 אַהֲרֹ֜ן אהרן PropN.ms.Abs Aaron
3 אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֗ה אל + משׁה Prep + PropN.ms.Abs to Moses
4 הֵ֣ן הן Interj behold
5 הַיֹּ֠ום ה + יום Art + Noun.ms.Abs this day
6 הִקְרִ֨יבוּ קרב Verb.Hiphil.Perf.3p they offered
7 אֶת־חַטָּאתָ֤ם את + חטאת + 3mp Prep + Noun.fs.Abs + 3mp suff their sin-offering
8 וְאֶת־עֹֽלָתָם֙ ו + את + עלה + 3mp Conj + Prep + Noun.fs.Abs + 3mp suff and their burnt-offering
9 לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֔ה ל + פנה + יהוה Prep + Noun.mp.Cst + PropN.ms.Abs before YHWH
10 וַתִּקְרֶ֥אנָה ו + קרא Conj + Verb.Qal.Wayq.3fp and befell
11 אֹתִ֖י את + 1cs Prep + 1cs suff me
12 כָּאֵ֑לֶּה כ + אלה Prep + DemPron.p like these (things)
13 וְאָכַ֤לְתִּי ו + אכל Conj + Verb.Qal.Perf.1s and (had) I eaten
14 חַטָּאת֙ חטאת Noun.fs.Abs sin-offering
15 הַיֹּ֔ום ה + יום Art + Noun.ms.Abs today
16 הַיִּיטַ֖ב ה + יטב Introg + Verb.Qal.Impf.3ms would it be good
17 בְּעֵינֵ֥י יְהוָֽה ב + עין + יהוה Prep + Noun.fd.Cst + PropN.ms.Abs in the eyes of YHWH

Verse 20

# Word Lemma Parsing Gloss
1 וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע ו + שׁמע Conj + Verb.Qal.Wayq.3ms and he heard
2 מֹשֶׁ֔ה משׁה PropN.ms.Abs Moses
3 וַיִּיטַ֖ב ו + יטב Conj + Verb.Qal.Wayq.3ms and it was good
4 בְּעֵינָֽיו ב + עין + 3ms Prep + Noun.fd.Abs + 3ms suff in his eyes

Clause Structure

Verse 16 — Four Clauses

Clause 1 (WxQX / Narrative):
  [Conj] וְ
  [Objc] אֵת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת      ← fronted object (topicalized)
  [Modi] דָּרֹשׁ                       ← infinitive absolute (intensifier)
  [Pred] דָּרַשׁ                       ← finite verb
  [Subj] מֹשֶׁה

Clause 2 (WxQ0 / Narrative):
  [Conj] וְ
  [Intj] הִנֵּה                       ← presentative ("and behold")
  [Pred] שֹׂרָף                       ← Pual perfect 3ms

Clause 3 (Way0 / Narrative):
  [Conj] וַ
  [Pred] יִּקְצֹף                     ← wayyiqtol narrative sequence
  [Cmpl] עַל אֶלְעָזָר וְעַל אִיתָמָר בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַנֹּותָרִם

Clause 4 (InfC / Narrative):
  [Pred] לֵאמֹר                       ← discourse-opening infinitive

Verse 17 — Five Clauses

Clause 1 (xQt0 / Quotation):
  [Ques] מַדּוּעַ                      ← interrogative particle
  [Nega] לֹא
  [Pred] אֲכַלְתֶּם                    ← Qal perfect 2mp
  [Objc] אֶת הַחַטָּאת
  [Loca] בִּמְקוֹם הַקֹּדֶשׁ

Clause 2 (NmCl / Quotation):
  [Conj] כִּי                          ← causal
  [PreC] קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים              ← predicate complement
  [Subj] הִוא

Clause 3 (WxQ0 / Quotation):
  [Conj] וְ
  [Objc] אֹתָהּ                        ← fronted object (emphatic)
  [Pred] נָתַן
  [Cmpl] לָכֶם

Clause 4 (InfC / Quotation):
  [Pred] לָשֵׂאת                       ← purpose infinitive construct #1
  [Objc] אֶת עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה

Clause 5 (InfC / Quotation):
  [Pred] לְכַפֵּר                      ← purpose infinitive construct #2
  [Cmpl] עֲלֵיהֶם
  [Adju] לִפְנֵי יְהוָה

Verse 18 — Four Clauses

Clause 1 (MSyn / Quotation):
  [Intj] הֵן                          ← presentative

Clause 2 (xQtX / Quotation):
  [Nega] לֹא
  [Pred] הוּבָא                        ← Hophal perfect 3ms
  [Subj] אֶת דָּמָהּ
  [Cmpl] אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ
  [Loca] פְּנִימָה                     ← directional adverb "inward"

Clause 3 (xYq0 / Quotation):
  [Modi] אָכוֹל                        ← infinitive absolute (intensifier)
  [Pred] תֹּאכְלוּ                     ← imperfect 2mp (obligatory)
  [Objc] אֹתָהּ
  [Loca] בַּקֹּדֶשׁ

Clause 4 (xQt0 / Quotation):
  [Conj] כַּאֲשֶׁר
  [Pred] צִוֵּיתִי                     ← Piel perfect 1s

Verse 19 — Five Clauses

Clause 1 (WayX / Narrative):
  [Pred] וַיְדַבֵּר  [Subj] אַהֲרֹן  [Cmpl] אֶל מֹשֶׁה

Clause 2 (xQt0 / Quotation):
  [Intj] הֵן  [Time] הַיֹּום  [Pred] הִקְרִיבוּ  [Objc] אֶת חַטָּאתָם וְאֶת עֹלָתָם  [Adju] לִפְנֵי יְהוָה

Clause 3 (Way0 / Narrative):
  [Pred] וַתִּקְרֶאנָה  [Objc] אֹתִי  [Adju] כָּאֵלֶּה

Clause 4 (WQt0 / Quotation):
  [Pred] וְאָכַלְתִּי  [Objc] חַטָּאת  [Time] הַיֹּום

Clause 5 (xYq0 / Quotation):
  [Ques] הַ               ← interrogative heh
  [Pred] יִּיטַב
  [Cmpl] בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה

Verse 20 — Two Clauses

Clause 1 (WayX / Narrative): [Pred] וַיִּשְׁמַע  [Subj] מֹשֶׁה
Clause 2 (Way0 / Narrative): [Pred] וַיִּיטַב  [Cmpl] בְּעֵינָיו

Key Grammatical Features

1. Cognate Infinitive Absolute: דָּרֹ֥שׁ דָּרַ֛שׁ (v.16) and אָכֹ֨ול תֹּאכְל֥וּ (v.18)

Two separate cognate-intensification constructions appear in this passage, each with a different finite verb form and a different rhetorical function.

V.16: דָּרֹשׁ דָּרַשׁ — Qal.InfAbs + Qal.Perf.3ms of דרשׁ (inquire/seek). The infinitive absolute precedes the cognate perfect, producing the KJV rendering "diligently sought." The construction intensifies the thoroughness of Moses' investigation — he did not casually notice the goat's absence but conducted an emphatic, purposeful inquiry. The clause parser tags the infinitive absolute as [Modi] (modifier) to the [Pred] finite verb, confirming its adverbial-intensifying function. The fronted object אֵת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת before the verb complex is a topicalization move: the goat of the sin-offering is what the narrative draws attention to before describing the search.

V.18: אָכוֹל תֹּאכְלוּ — Qal.InfAbs + Qal.Impf.2mp of אכל (eat). Here the infinitive absolute intensifies an imperfect with obligatory/modal force: "you should certainly have eaten it." The same construction appears in Gen 2:16 (אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל "thou mayest freely eat") and Gen 2:17 (מוֹת תָּמוּת "thou shalt surely die"). In v.18 the modal direction is reproach: Moses declares what ought to have been done. The clause tags the infinitive as [Modi] to the imperfect [Pred].

2. Dual Purpose Infinitive Construct Chain: לָשֵׂאת ... לְכַפֵּר (v.17)

This is the grammatical centerpiece of Moses' accusation. Two ל-prefixed infinitive constructs appear in sequence, each heading its own clause (Clauses 4 and 5 of v.17), both dependent on the finite verb נָתַן ("he gave"):

  • לָשֵׂאת (Qal.InfCon of נשׂא, H5375) — "to bear." Object: אֶת עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה "the iniquity of the congregation."
  • לְכַפֵּר (Piel.InfCon of כפר, H3722) — "to make atonement." Complement: עֲלֵיהֶם "upon/for them." Adjunct: לִפְנֵי יְהוָה "before YHWH."

The two infinitives are syntactically parallel but semantically sequential. Bearing (נשׂא) the iniquity is the function of the priestly eating — the priest absorbs the guilt-load of the offering by consuming the sacrificial flesh. Making atonement (כפר, Piel factitive = "effect the covering") is the result that the bearing produces. The clause parser treats each infinitive as the predicate of its own clause, confirming that these are two distinct purpose statements chained from a single governing verb, not a single compound purpose.

The Piel stem of כפר is significant: it is the factitive function ("bring about the state of being covered/atoned"), not the Qal stative. The priest's eating accomplishes the atonement — it does not merely describe a state.

3. Hophal Perfect הוּבָא and the Blood-Destination Rule (v.18)

הוּבָ֣א (Hophal.Perf.3ms of בוא, H935) — "was brought." The Hophal is the causative passive of the Hiphil הֵבִיא "to bring in." Moses uses the agent-suppressed passive: the blood "was not brought in" — the focus is on the state of the blood's non-arrival, not on who failed to bring it. The subject is אֶת דָּמָהּ "its blood" (the blood of the sin-offering).

The directional adverb פְּנִ֑ימָה ("inward," with directional heh suffix -âh) combined with the prepositional phrase אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ ("to the holy place") doubles the spatial reference: the blood was not brought to the holy place inward. This double locative emphasizes the specific inner sanctuary destination.

This clause articulates the blood-destination rule that governs the two-path system for sin-offering disposal:

Path A — Blood enters the sanctuary (אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה): When blood is brought inside the holy place (as for the priest's own sin-offering, Lev 4:5-7, or the congregation's sin-offering, Lev 4:16-18), the flesh must be burned outside the camp (Lev 4:12, 21). It is not eaten. The governing text is Lev 6:23 [Heb; 6:30 Eng]: וְכָל חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ לֹא תֵאָכֵל בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף ("And every sin-offering whose blood is brought [Hophal.Impf.3ms of בוא] into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place shall not be eaten; in fire it shall be burned"). The same Hophal stem (יוּבָא) appears in Lev 6:23 as in 10:18 (הוּבָא), creating a verbal link between the rule and its application.

Path B — Blood stays outside (not brought in): When the blood is applied only to the outer altar (as for the ruler's sin-offering, Lev 4:25, or the individual's, Lev 4:30, 34), the flesh is eaten by the priests in the holy place. This is what Moses expected in Lev 10:18: since the blood of this particular sin-offering was NOT brought inside (לֹא הוּבָא ... אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה), the priests were obligated to eat it.

The Hophal form grammatically encodes the institutional/procedural character of the blood manipulation — the blood is "caused to come" by priestly action, and the passive form focuses on the blood's resulting location rather than the agent.

4. Pual Perfect שֹׂרָ֑ף (v.16) — Discovery of Wrongful Burning

שֹׂרָ֑ף (Pual.Perf.3ms of שׂרף, H8313) — "it had been burned." The Pual is the passive of the Piel (D-stem passive), indicating that the goat was in a state of having been thoroughly burned. The Pual form (as opposed to the more common Niphal passive תִּשָּׂרֵף, which appears in Lev 6:23) emphasizes the completed, resultative state of destruction — Moses arrives and discovers the goat already fully consumed by fire.

This is the finding that triggers the confrontation. The discovery sequence is narratively compressed: (1) דָּרֹשׁ דָּרַשׁ — emphatically sought; (2) וְהִנֵּה — dramatic presentative "behold!"; (3) שֹׂרָף — the result-state of burning. The הִנֵּה + Pual perfect combination presents the burned state as a surprise discovery from Moses' point of view.

The wrongness of the burning is established by the blood-destination rule: since the blood had NOT been brought inside (v.18), the goat should have been eaten, not burned.

5. Construct Chain קֹ֥דֶשׁ קָֽדָשִׁ֖ים (v.17) — "Holy of Holies" Classification

קֹדֶשׁ (Noun.ms.Cst) + קָדָשִׁים (Noun.mp.Abs) — a superlative construct chain: "holiness of holinesses" = "most holy." The clause parser identifies this as [PreC] (predicate complement) in a nominal clause with הִוא as subject: "it [is] most holy."

This classification is the grounds for Moses' accusation. Because the sin-offering is classified as קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים, the Levitical code assigns specific handling requirements. The construct chain functions as a technical cultic classification, not merely a descriptive adjective. The same phrase appears in Lev 6:22 [Heb; 6:29 Eng]: קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִוא, immediately before the blood-destination rule in Lev 6:23, linking the "most holy" classification to the two-path disposal system.

6. Niphal Participle הַנֹּותָרִ֖ם (v.16) — "The Remaining Ones"

הַנֹּותָרִם (Art + Niphal.Ptcp.mp.Abs of יתר, "remain") — "the remaining/surviving ones." The Niphal participle carries a stative/resultative force: Eleazar and Ithamar are in the state of having remained alive. The article הַ substantivizes the participle as a restrictive modifier of בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן — these are specifically "the sons of Aaron who were the survivors."

The participial form carries a narrative shadow: Nadab and Abihu have just been consumed by divine fire (Lev 10:1-2). The Niphal "remaining ones" implicitly acknowledges the death of the other two sons and frames the confrontation in that context — Moses is addressing the survivors of a catastrophe, which becomes relevant to Aaron's defense in v.19.

7. Interrogative הֲ + Imperfect: הַיִּיטַ֖ב בְּעֵינֵ֥י יְהוָֽה (v.19) — Aaron's Rhetorical Counter

הַיִּיטַב (Introg.הַ + Qal.Impf.3ms of יטב, H3190) — "Would it be good?" Aaron's response constructs a rhetorical question expecting a negative answer. The interrogative heh prefix (הֲ-) on the imperfect creates a counterfactual: "If I had eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of YHWH?" The imperfect יִּיטַב carries modal force (potential/hypothetical), not simple future.

The idiom יטב בְּעֵינֵי X ("be good in the eyes of X") is a standard Hebrew formula for approval/acceptance (Gen 12:13; 34:18; 41:37). Aaron deploys it to reframe the question: Moses asked why they did not eat; Aaron asks whether eating would have been acceptable given the day's events.

The resolution in v.20 uses the same root: וַיִּיטַ֖ב בְּעֵינָֽיו (Qal.Wayq.3ms of יטב + "in his eyes") — "and it was good in his eyes." The verbal echo creates an inclusion: Aaron's hypothetical "would it be good in the eyes of YHWH?" is answered by the narrative's "and it was good in his [Moses'] eyes." Moses accepts Aaron's reasoning.

Construct Chain Analysis

Verse 16

  1. שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת — "he-goat of the sin-offering" (ms.Cst + fs.Abs with article)
  2. בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן — "sons of Aaron" (mp.Cst + ms.Abs proper noun)

Verse 17

  1. מְקוֹם הַקֹּדֶשׁ — "place of the holiness" = "the holy place" (ms.Cst + ms.Abs with article)
  2. קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים — "holiness of holinesses" = "most holy" (ms.Cst + mp.Abs, superlative)
  3. עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה — "iniquity of the congregation" (ms.Cst + fs.Abs with article)
  4. פְנֵי יְהוָה — "face of YHWH" = "before YHWH" (mp.Cst + ms.Abs proper noun)

Verse 18

No construct chains. Spatial relations expressed through prepositions (אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ, בַּקֹּדֶשׁ) and the adverb פְּנִימָה.

Verse 19

  1. פְנֵי יְהוָה — "face of YHWH" = "before YHWH" (mp.Cst + ms.Abs)
  2. עֵינֵי יְהוָה — "eyes of YHWH" = "in the sight of YHWH" (fd.Cst + ms.Abs)

Discourse Structure Summary

The passage follows a tight narrative-quotation-narrative frame:

Section Vv. Clause Types Speaker Function
Narrative: discovery 16a WxQX (topicalized object + cognate intensification) Narrator Moses searches, finds goat burned
Narrative: anger 16b Way0 (wayyiqtol chain) Narrator Moses' anger at Eleazar and Ithamar
Quotation: accusation 17-18 xQt0 (interrogative) + NmCl + WxQ0 + InfC ×2 + xQtX + xYq0 Moses Three-part argument: (1) why didn't you eat? (2) it is most holy, given to you for bearing iniquity and making atonement; (3) since blood wasn't brought inside, you were obligated to eat it
Quotation: defense 19 xQt0 + Way0 + WQt0 + xYq0 (rhetorical question) Aaron Counter-argument: given what happened today, would eating have been acceptable?
Narrative: resolution 20 WayX + Way0 (two-clause wayyiqtol) Narrator Moses heard and was satisfied

The verbal echo of יטב across vv.19-20 ties Aaron's rhetorical question to its narrative resolution. The passage-closing parashah marker פ after v.20 marks this as a closed literary unit.

Cross-References

Grammar Library

Word Studies