Deuteronomy 17:4
וְהֻֽגַּד־לְךָ וְשָׁמָעְתָּ וְדָרַשְׁתָּ הֵיטֵב וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר נֶעֶשְׂתָה הַתּוֹעֵבָה הַזֹּאת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
✦ Hebrew interlinear
Tap a word to see its entry
✦ The same verse in five languages
וְהֻֽגַּד־לְךָ֖ וְשָׁמָ֑עְתָּ וְדָרַשְׁתָּ֣ הֵיטֵ֔ב וְהִנֵּ֤ה אֱמֶת֙ נָכ֣וֹן הַדָּבָ֔ר נֶעֶשְׂתָ֛ה הַתּוֹעֵבָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את בְּיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
καὶ ἀναγγελῇ σοι· καὶ ἐκζητήσεις σφόδρα, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀληθῶς γέγονεν τὸ ῥῆμα, γεγένηται τὸ βδέλυγμα τοῦτο ἐν Ἰσραήλ·
Greek text from Swete's edition, CC BY-SA 4.0
Latin (Vulgate)
et hoc tibi fuerit nuntiatum, audiensque inquisieris diligenter et verum esse repereris, et abominatio facta est in Israël:
y se les diga, y lo hayan oído, entonces indagarán con diligencia. He aquí, si es cierto, y la cosa es cierta, que tal abominación se hace en Israel,
Classic Spanish (Reina-Valera 1909)
Y te fuere dado aviso, y, después que oyeres y hubieres indagado bien, la cosa parece de verdad cierta, que tal abominación ha sido hecha en Israel;
and if it is reported and you hear about it, you must investigate it thoroughly. If the report is true and such an abomination has happened in Israel,
✦ What the text says
Summary
Deuteronomy 17:4 describes the legal procedure to follow when a report of wrongdoing reaches the community: the matter must be heard, investigated thoroughly, and confirmed as true before it is affirmed that "this abomination" has actually occurred in Israel. The verse is built as a chain of sequential actions leading to a formal declaration of certainty.
Key words
- hugad ("it will be told", H5046) — hophal (causative passive) perfect with vav, continuing a narrative sequence; the report arrives passively, without a named reporter.
- darashta ("you will investigate", H1875) paired with hetev ("thoroughly", H3190) — the qal perfect verb is intensified by an absolute infinitive from the causative stem, emphasizing thoroughness of inquiry rather than merely stating it happened.
- nakhon ("is certain/established", H3559K) — niphal participle describing emet ("truth", H0571H); the passive/reflexive form frames truth as something confirmed through process, not simply asserted.
- na'esetah ("it has been done", H6213A) — niphal perfect, completed passive action, describing hadavar ("the matter", H1697J), separate from the abomination clause that follows.
- hato'evah hazot ("this abomination", H8441 + H2063) — definite noun with demonstrative, naming the specific deed under investigation.
What the text says
The Hebrew presents four verbs in sequence, each carrying vav plus a perfect form that functions as a continuing narrative chain: hugad ("it will be told"), shama'ta ("you will hear"), darashta hetev ("you will investigate thoroughly"). This chain moves from passive reception of a report, through hearing, to active and intensified investigation — the infinitive absolute hetev underlines that the search must be complete, not superficial.
After this chain, the particle hinneh ("there!") introduces a shift: instead of another sequential verb, the text presents a nominal clause — emet nakhon hadavar — literally "truth, established, the matter," using the niphal participle nakhon to describe the state of confirmation reached. Only after this is the completed action stated with the niphal perfect na'esetah, applied not to "the matter" again but to hato'evah hazot ("this abomination"), tying the confirmed report to the specific accused deed "in Israel" (beYisra'el, H3478).
Differences between versions
The LXX renders the confirmation clause as "ἀληθῶς γέγονεν τὸ ῥῆμα" ("truly the matter has happened") using a single verb gegonen, where the Hebrew uses two separate elements: the participle nakhon ("established") and the noun emet ("truth"). The Vulgate similarly compresses this into "verum esse repereris" ("you find it to be true"), collapsing the Hebrew's two-stage confirmation (truth established → deed done) into one finding. The English versions (BSB, RV1909) also merge these into a single conditional clause, where the Hebrew keeps nakhon and na'esetah as two distinct predications.
This explanation describes the text using linguistic data; it adds no doctrine or confessional interpretation.