Thursday, February 25, 2021

Of plurals and singulars

As part of the process of producing the priestly vestements, פסוק כ"ח:מ commands "ולבני אהרן תעשה כתנות", and for the sons of Aharon you shall make tunics. This can be interpreted in two ways - one tunic for each כהן or many tunics for each כהן. This is the subject of a dispute in ירושלמי יומא ג:ו. The רבנן hold two tunics for each כהן and ר' יוסי holds one tunic for each כהן suffices.

In the .גמרא מגילה ז we find רב יוסף learns that when it says in מתנות לאביונים in מגילת אסתר it means 2 total מתנות for 2 אביונים - only one for each poor person. טורי אבן in חגיגה and אבני שהם in מגילה (same author) comment that this גמרא goes like ר' יוסי in the ירושלמי who holds one tunic for each כהן. However, asks מצפה איתן in מגילה, from תוספות in .חגיגה ג we see that the הלכה in regards to the dispute in the ירושלמי is like the רבנן - two tunics for each כהן. If רב יוסף in מגילה is going only according to ר' יוסי then it is not in accordance with הלכה!

מצפה איתן answers from פרי חדש אורח חיים תרצ"ד who writes that if the פסוק had written "ולאביונים מתנות" then it would have implied two to each but now that it says it the other way around it only means one to each. Therefore, the rule is that if the subject is written before the object then it may imply that to these subjects you will give (plural) objects to each. That then is the subject of dispute in ירושלמי where the פסוק in question is "ולבני אהרן תעשה כתנות", the subject coming before the object. However, with מתנות לאביונים where the object comes first, it means that these objects shall be distributed amongst the following subjects and everyone will agree that it is one per person. [This also explains why the גמרא in יומא entertains the possibility that there were two lots on each goat in the יום כפור procedure because the pasuk is "על שני השעירים גורלות," the subject before the object.]

I could use a rest

Tonight (פורים תשע"ז) I made a correction on a split-section decision which I wasn't sure really changed the meaning.
ט:כ"ב כַּיָּמִ֗ים אֲשֶׁר־נָ֨חוּ
The בעל קריאה pronounced it na-CHU, with the accent on the last syllable. I know that the שורש of נח - or whatever it should be in full form - is a very tricky one with words sounding very similar but meaning completely different things. For example, see שולחן ערוך או"ח כ"ה:ז ובמשנה ברורה. So I corrected on the spot. Any thoughts as to whether it changes the meaning?

Not that kind of oil

From תשע"ד:

Rather hot of the press - not the oil press, just had to make this correction tonight and figured it would be a good idea to bring it to everyone's attention.
ב:י"ב ששה חדשים בשמן המר
The phrase that appears a number of times in the תורה is שמן המאור so it is easy to mistakenly use that term here but it obviously completely changes the meaning. I highly doubt the king would have fancied a woman who smelled like olive oil. Some of you might be thinking "oh come on, that's obvious." Well, I'll have you know that while I corrected it immediately, no one else in the entire shul even flinched, from what I could tell. So keep an eye/ear out for this one.

מגילת אסתר Advisory - Floor or coal?

עַל רִצְפַת בַּהַט-וָשֵׁשׁ

A couple of years ago, one of the readers of this blog pointed out to me a very subtle observation on the above word which I am certain is not at all well-known. The proper pronunciation is as above and the word means 'floor.' Probably due to the Hebrew word with which most are familiar, it is quite common to pronounce this word רִצְפַּת.

However, in ישעיה ו:ו we have the word רִצְפָּה meaning 'coal.' It is therefore very important that the word is pronounced properly. I would even suggest mentioning it to the בעל קריאה beforehand.

See the comments below for a lengthy discussion.

Recently, this word was the subject of discussion in the Dikduk WhatsApp group. One of the members suggested that the mispronunciation is not as drastic as first thought since the two words - floor and coal - actually really emanate from the same root רצף. To support this assertion, he pointed to שיר השירים ג:י - תוכו רצוף אהבה. There רש"י explains it as connected to the word for floor while מצודת ציון connects it to גחלת.

Sunday, February 21, 2021

Bigsan and ...

This post will probably be of little interest to those who lain in הברה ספרדית.
I'm not sure why but this year, my "pet peeve" energies have been spent on the widespread misconception that מרדכי was אסתר's uncle. It states explicitly twice that they were cousins but everyone seems to teach that he was her uncle. (Also see this article on the subject.)

Anyway, another part of the story the kids tend to know very well is that of Bigsan and Seresh. Now for the younger kids, it is always a challenge to remember the difference between Seresh and Zeresh, Haman's wife. But it doesn't have to be that hard!

The geniuses at Kol Rom have just released [many years ago] Megillas Lester, a brilliantly executed 3D-animated film revolving around the story of the מגילה. They put up a number of fascinating behind the scenes video and one of them discusses where they went specifically with חז"ל and when artistic license was used. He discusses something that never occurred to me. The name of the second guard was actually Teresh. It never appears that way in the מגילה because it is always preceded by a וי"ו. I've included the video below (jumping to the important part):

Fighting the Good Fight

One of the more serious mistakes a בעל קריאה can make when reading the מגילה is actually not in the מגילה itself. This hit me one year when I heard this mistake made and unfortunately, did not have the reflexes to correct it on the spot. After we finish the מגילה we make the ברכה of הרב את ריבנו, He who fights our fights. The proper pronunciation is, of course, הָרָב. But when mispronounced הָרַב, I believe that means "He who increases our fights." (Or, Elie suggests in the comments that perhaps it might have a different meaning.) That's not a good thing at all. Honestly, if I hear this again, I would try to correct it ... unless someone thinks otherwise.

This is the time

You make the call:

It was a pretty breezy Purim as far as the מגילה goes. However, there was one thing I was a little unsure of. At night, the בעל קריאה said ד:י"ד וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם לָעֵת כָּזֹאת הִגַּעַתְּ לַמַּלְכוּת instead of לְעֵת. I let it go. My thinking was that the term as a whole is a definite, even if לְעֵת is indefinite. What do you say?

I would also say that in the back of my mind, I hoped that there was actually another גרסא that had לָעֵת. I have been using an Artscroll Megillah for the last while. But I have realized that it might not be as מדוקדק as I would like. Can anyone recommend a readily available new מגילה which is known to be מדוקדק?

Something else that was "hidden" in the מגילה

While others might have been having more mainstream הערות or simply paying attention to the מגילה, I had the following observation:

ומה שאלתך וינתן לך ומה בקשתך עוד ותעש

Certainly, the word שאלה is feminine. Therefore, we would expect the פסוק to read ומה שאלתך ותנתן לך just as ותעש is in feminine form due to בקשה being feminine. I believe the following must be the explanation: If someone requests something, it is certainly possible to perform the request. However, if someone asks for something, you cannot give them "their asking." Rather, you give them the thing which they asked for. Therefore, we treat this as if there were a hidden word, perhaps as follows: ומה שאלתך וינתן הדבר לך and that is why it is masculine.

However, as MG points out in the comments, even בקשה switches seemingly to masculine earlier on in the מגילה. The אבן עזרא says there that it is referring to a hidden דבר. So my explanation for the gender change was correct. But my distinction between בקשה and שאלה apparently was not.

Recently, the following excerpt was posted in the Dikduk WhatsApp group which addresses this question:

מגלת אסתר

Being in charge of correcting for the מגילה is a very scary task. It's enough that everyone is so uptight about making sure every syllable is pronounced correctly. What makes it worse is all the different שיטות and knowing what might be a mistake and what is not. I once was "right-hand man" (I might have stood on his left) for someone who chose to repeat the פסוק for every word that was a matter of significant dispute, not just להרוג ולאבד and לא עמד בפניהם.

On that note, the רב of our shul told me this past week he once heard someone read בפניהם and not go back. He was very troubled as he read in מנחת שי that לפניהם was in fact the more likely correct word. However, he later found in קסת הסופר by the בעל קיצור שלחן ערוך that בפניהם is in fact correct. Surprisingly, to support this assertion, he asserts that this is the way it is found in the Concordance!

So, anyone who has any advisories to offer, anything to look out for, please post.
For anyone who is not registered as a contributor, I have made a new link on the right to send questions or comments to be posted.


Here's a good one from MG in the comments:
A lesser-known mistake but one that I've heard: "צהלה ושמחה" - the first "ה" in "צהלה" is a חטף-פתח. If pronounced as a קמץ., it changes the meaning to a noun.

Please see more in the comments below:

Friday, February 19, 2021

ונהפוך הוא

This week's פרשה contains many commands and thus, many instances of a וי"ו ההיפוך which changes the accent on the word. There seem to be a number of instances where the accent is not changed due to the נסוג אחור rule. Additionally, it seems the word ועשית, which appears numerous times, can never have the accent on the last syllable. If you know why, feel free to chime in.

In general, I do not correct misplaced accents for reasons I would like to discuss another time. However, I don't think it would be unreasonable to do so. Nevertheless, in those cases when the accent is not changed for circumstantial reasons, like ועשית, I find it very hard to justify a correction.

Watch out for that קמץ

אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה מָרְאֶה בָּהָר

The severity of this possible mistake is spelled out clearly in רש"י. Again, this is an easy mistake to make and a difficult one to catch. מָרְאֶה is a strange word you don't see very often. The natural inclination will be to read it מַרְאֶה but that completely changes the word from meaning "shown (by another)" to "show (to others.)" Be aware!

ככר זהב

כִּכַּר זָהָב טָהוֹר יַעֲשֶׂה אתָהּ

When I first read this פסוק I thought I would be writing this post as an advisory. The first word of this pasuk seems to be connected to the following word. Therefore it should be pronounced as written above so that it means, "a block of pure gold" and not "a block, pure gold." תרגום אונקלוס seems to support this with his clear indication of סמיכות in translating ככרא דדהב.

However, the חומש I use which attributes its editing to Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, זצ"ל, has a קמץ under the כּ"ף. I must therefore assume that this is a matter of dispute.

This issue becomes more intriguing with the פסוק in (פרשת ויקהל (ל"ז:כ"ד. Whereas the פסוק in פרשת תרומה was rendered by אונקלוס as ככרא דדהב, in ויקהל it is ככרא דהב. Why would they be different?

Anonymous said...
בדפוס סביוניטה אין הבדל בין תרומה לויקהל
March 23, 2007 3:01 AM

Please see further informative comments by MG. Essentially, it appears the קמץ is more correct.

Also, please see the following extensive discussion from the fabulous weekly publication, תורת הקורא:

The Lord and the Rings

If you can give me a consistent explanation for this, I just might consider bringing your clothes to the bathhouse for you (:סנהדרין ס"ב). I noticed a very intriguing discrepancy in the תורה's description of the rings that were affixed to the various vessels that required them. In some instances, no specific purpose was given for the rings but in most cases, it was stated that the purpose of the rings was to house the staves. I have constructed a table (without rings) detailing the exact wording for each vessel for both the commandment and the actual manufacturing.

עשיה צווי
(ל"ז:ג)-- (כ"ב:י"ב)-- ארון
בָּתִּים לַבַּדִּים (ל"ז:י"ד) לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים (כ"ה:כ"ז) שלחן
לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים (ל"ז:כ"ז) לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים (ל:ד) מזבח הזהב
בָּתִּים לַבַּדִּים (ל"ח:ה) (כ"ז: ד)-- מזבח החיצון

I have accentuated the problematic portion of the word, namely the vowel underneath the למ"ד which seems to change inexplicably. Any ideas?

Thursday, February 11, 2021

האשה וילדיה

האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדניה

In בבא קמא נד., the גמרא discusses the use of a singular verb in reference to plural subjects as acceptable in תנ"ך. However, in all of the examples discussed there the verb precedes the subjects. However, the above פסוק demonstrates that it can occur in the reverse as well. One would have expected the פסוק to read האשה וילדיה יהיו לאדניה but apparently תהיה suffices.

Answer vs. Torture

אִם עַנֵּה תְעַנֶּה אתוֹ

וְלא תַעֲנֶה עַל רִב לִנְטת

If the two פסוקים above are read without vowels, it appears the same word appears both times. However, they are clearly two separate words. תְעַנֶּה means to torture. תַעֲנֶה means to answer. Keep an ear out for this one - it's easy to miss.

Thanks to ba in the comments, here is a nice list of words in תנ"ך that are the same but different.

The Ox and his Friend

One of the laws dealt with in this week's פרשה is that of damages incurred when one's animal gores another. The פסוק says אבן עזרא .כ"א:ל"ה - וכי יגף שור איש את שור רעהו explains these words as follows: And if the ox of a man gores the ox of his (this man's) friend. However, he brings an alternative explanation from קראי by the name of בן זוטא. He interprets: And if the ox of a man gores his (the ox's) friend - another ox. אבן עזרא rejects this ridiculous interpretation based on the trop of the פסוק which clearly indicates that it should be read otherwise. Besides, adds the אבן עזרא sharply, an ox has no friends - except for בן זוטא!

It is not often that a pshat in a ראשון on חומש will have one rolling in laughter but this one did it to me. However, אבן עזרא's sharp attack on בן זוטא is not so clear. Daniel Scarowsky, ז"ל, once pointed out to me that we find in the 'משניות בבא קמא פרק ה (bottom of :מח):
"...שור שהיה מתכון לחברו" an ox that had intention to gore 'his friend.' It seems the ox is not the social outcast the אבן עזרא had perceived him to be. But Daniel explained that the answer must be that there is a difference between the term רֵע used in our פסוק, and the term חבר used in the חבר .משנה comes from the root meaning connection. A חבר is merely one who has a specific connection with the other. This connection may be as simple as both being oxen. A רֵע, a term used to denote a more serious friendship, implies a deeper connection which an ox does not have. Except, of course, with בן זוטא.

Tricky Vowels

כ"א: כ"ט וְאִם שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא
כ"א:ל"ו אוֹ נוֹדַע כִּי שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא

The vowels here are very important. If the קמץ and פתח are flipped, the word takes on a totally different meaning. נָגַח, the incorrect pronunciation, is a verb, gored in the past tense. But the proper pronunciation, נַגָּח, is a noun meaning a goring ox. We find this construct in numerous other places such as גַמָל meaning not a camel but one who rides camels.

It just so happens that my son is now learning the סוגיא of שור מועד in school so this observation was particularly on my mind.

Jewish Milk

I once saw an article about חלב ישראל and decided to post this. A friend of mine pointed out to me once that the common pronunciation of this term, Cholov Yisroel, is actually incorrect. Due to סמיכות (which I'm not 100% certain of, see comments) it should be chaleiv Yisrael as in לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו. I've always wanted to try some funny "proper דקדוק" social experiments - like have everyone use that term in public and see what kind of reactions you get, and the one I suggested on another occasion.

Three strikes and you're out

... well, one strike, really. Saw this in the דקדוק WhatsApp group recently:
👍👍👍דבר יפה שראיתי בתיקון קוראים סימנים:
שארהּ - מפיק הא.
כסותהּ - מפיק הא.
ועונתהּ - מפיק הא.
ואם שלש אלה לא יעשה להּ - כלומר: מי שלא יבטא את שלשת המפיקים, אז - ויצא חינם אין כסף - לא ישלמו לו משכורת על הקריאה...

Give it to me

בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּתְּנוֹ לִי

The above bolded word, when pronounced correctly, is translated, "you (singular) shall give it to me." If mispronounced תִּתְּנוּ it means, "you (plural) shall give to me." Certainly correctable!

Wednesday, February 3, 2021

Many who fear God

וְאַתָּה תֶחֱזֶה מִכָּל-הָעָם אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל יִרְאֵי אֱלהִים
One should be very careful with the above bolded word. The proper pronunciation is "yir-AI," with specific emphasis on the חיריק under the יו"ד and the separation of the first and second syllables. It is very easy to mispronounce this word as if it were יְרֵא - a lazy חיריק can easily turn into a שוא and the צירי under the אל"ף can easily be mistakenly placed under the רי"ש. This mistake will change the word from plural to singular. [Although perhaps one might suggest that it is clear from אנשי חיל that we are referring to a plural entity.]

I have been asked on a number of occasions if there is a difference in the exact pronunciation of a חיריק חסר and a חיריק מלא. I believe that "by the rules" there likely should be a subtle difference in the strength of the "ee" sound if there is no יו"ד. However, I usually suggest that it is far too risky to try to differentiate. I have a separate blurb about how we tend to pronounce a שוא two different ways, depending on the context and it should probably be one or the other. But my real point here is that if you try to soften a חיריק it will get too close to a שוא and the above point is a perfect example of why that is not worth the risk and better to pronounce all חיריקs the same.


בַּחדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לְצֵאת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל

It was early on a שבועות morning when, after staying up all night, I needed to be alert enough to correct the בעל קריאה when he pronounced the above bolded word לָצֵאת. In its correct form, the word means "to (since) the exit of," but as it was mispronounced, it is simply the infinitive, to exit.

This surely seems to be a change in meaning. However, even the word itself seems to change meaning, if the context of the word implies the proper meaning, this may render the mistake forgivable. In our case, there seems to be no logical understanding of the pasuk with the word לָצֵאת. Perhaps, then, this mistake is not as grave as it seems. [However, I would still correct it on the spot.]

Furthermore, commenter Elie points out the following:
מה תאמרו על תחילת הפטרת בוא
לָבוא נבוכדראצר וגו'
וזה ברור שהוא כמו כאן לצאת 
אע"פ שמנוקד בקמץ
That being said, we do find the word with the same meaning with a פתח under the ל. So perhaps even the meaning does not change.

On top of Old Smokey...

וְהַר סִינַי עָשַׁן כֻּלּוֹ

As רש"י writes on this pasuk, there is a very distinct difference between עָשַׁן and עָשָׁן. The true meaning of the פסוק is that הר סיני was smoked i.e. covered in smoke. If read incorrectly with two קמצים it would imply that the mountain was all smoke. In short, the difference is whether the word is a verb or a noun.

If a בעל קריאה is not clear in differentiating his קמץ from his פתח (I've met a few of those in my day,) then this error might go unnoticed.

רם ונשא

From Eliyahu Levin regarding this week's הפטרה:

ישעיה ו א וָאֶרְאֶ֧ה אֶת-אֲדנָ֛י יֹשֵׁ֥ב עַל-כִּסֵּ֖א רָ֣ם וְנִשָּׂ֑א
שאלה שהגיעתני: אומרים בשחרית לשבת ויום טוב: המלך היושב על כסא רם ונשא. האם המלך הוא רם ונשא או הכסא? מצאתי שההזכרה היחידה בכל תנ"ך של כסא רם ונשא היא בהפטרת השבוע ושם הרד"ק והמלבי"ם חולקים אם הרם ונשא הוא על השם או על הכסא. מה יסוד מחלקותם?
ר' משה ארנד: שלום!
ההמשך בשחרית בשבת הוא שוכן עד וכו', ברור שהכוונה לפסוק מהפטרת יו"כ, וא"כ יתכן שגם הרם ונשא שנזכר הוא מהפסוק הקודם שם (ישעיה נ"ז למנינם): כי כה אמר רם ונשא שוכן עד וקדוש שמו מרום וקדוש אשכון, וזה אומר שיש לפסק: המלך היושב על כסא, רם ונשא וכו'. אני אומר זאת בגדר אפשר. ומה שהחזנים והקהלות נוהגים להתחיל החזנות מהאמצע (ויש שמחליפים שם חזן) לא מסתדר עם הבנה זו.
תשובתי: נראה שמצאנו רם ונשא גם בהפטרת יום כיפור למשל ישעיהו נז,טו: כִּי֩ כֹ֨ה אָמַ֝ר רָ֣ם וְנִשָּׂ֗א ולכן יתכן שגם כאן זה הקב"ה, מאידך[1] הפשטות היא עַל-כִּסֵּ֖א רָ֣ם וְנִשָּׂ֑א כלומר הכסא גבוה (מהטעמים אין הכרעה חד משמעית אבל נוטה לטובת הכסא).
ר' יעקב לויפר: מדוע ר' אליהו אתה אומר שאין הכרעה מהטעמים, ועוד סבור שהם נוטים לטובת הכסא?
הנה ההטעמה: וָאֶרְאֶ֧ה אֶת-אֲדנָ֛י יֹשֵׁ֥ב עַל-כִּסֵּ֖א רָ֣ם וְנִשָּׂ֑א
אם הטעמים סוברים ש'רם ונשא' הוא תואר של הכסא, היה ראוי שיטעימו את השם בזקף, ההטעמה הזאת דווקא מראה ש'רם ונשא' מוסב אל השם, כדרך שציין אליהוא ב'זוטות לפרשת יתרו' כי ההטעמה יֵרֵ֧ד ה֛' לְעֵינֵ֥י כָל-הָעָ֖ם עַל-הַ֥ר סִינָֽי׃ (שמות יט יא) מוכיחה כי 'על הר סיני' מוסב על 'ירד ה' ולא על 'כל העם'.
יעקב לויפר
תשובתי: מעניין, יענו: וָאֶרְאֶ֧ה אֶת אֲ-דנָ֛י [יֹשֵׁ֥ב עַל-כִּסֵּ֖א] רָ֣ם וְנִשָּׂ֑א
לא חשבתי על זה, אבל סוף סוף יש טרחא (כלשון אליהוא) במילה כסא,
אבל עם הדוגמה מ"על הר סיני" קשה לי להתווכח.
טוב אכנס להגיגים.
יעלו"י: מה אתה רואה בטרחא? הרי היא מפסיקה יותר מהתביר, לפיכך: ואראה את ה' יושב על כסא - רם ונשא [ה'].
אם היו מבינים 'כסא רם ונשא' היו מציבים זקף במקום התביר, ואז היה מתקבל הפיסוק 'ואראה את ה' - יושב על כסא רם ונשא'.
תשובתי: אנסה להסביר: כיון שכסא בטרחא הבנתי שכל הקטע לפניו [וָאֶרְאֶ֧ה אֶת-אֲדנָ֛י יֹשֵׁ֥ב] טפל אליו ו"רם ונשא" תיאור הכסא.
אליהוא: אכן, שני הפסוקים בישעיה ו' ונ"ז יוצרים רושם שהקב"ה הוא אכן רם ונשא, ואין מה לדבר על הכסא.
אלא מה, יתכן לפרש את הביטוי 'רם ונשא' כתואר 'לא חשוב' שנדחק מעבר למפסיק החזק (טרחא).
ואז עדיין ניתן לטעון כי הכסא גם הוא רם ונשא.
ועוד, חיזוק לרעיון מן ההקשר. הרי כאשר אומרים שהקב"ה יושב על כסא רם ונשא יש פה האנשה נחמדה. אבל כאשר אומרים שהוא רם ונשא וגם יושב על כסא, מה טעם האמירה שהוא יושב על כסא? האנשה לשמה?!
לכן, הנח להם ישראל שחושבים שהכסא רם ונשא.
אך דעו נא, כי גם מאן שסבר כי הכסא רם ונשא צריך לקרא בהפסק אחרי 'כסא', כי הרי כן קרא גם ישעיה.
בברכת התורה
ליאור יעקובי: קוגוט מביא את דעת שד"ל שת"י ובעל הטעמים עזבו את הפשט מסיבה תאולוגי.
וקוגוט דוחה אותו ע"פ המדרש:
מדרש תנאים לדברים פרק יד
כיוצא בו אתה אומר (ישע' ו א) בשנת מות המלך עזיהו ואראה את ה' יושב על כסא רם ונשא ואין אנו יודעין אם הכסא רם ונשא ואם המקום ת"ל (שם נז טו) כי כה אמר רם ונשא:
הרי דיון ע"פ הפסוק השני. ע"כ ליאור.
אחד המגיבים בהגיגים: לרגל המשא ומתן עיינתי בכתוב, ועלתה לי תמיהה אחרת, כי הנה כתוב כי כה אמר רם ונשא שכן עד וקדוש שמו מרום וקדוש אשכון.
והנה אנו אומרים שוכן עד מרום וקדוש שמו. מהיכן המקור ש"מרום" וקדוש שמו?
כוכב דויד: בפסוק בישעיהו נז, טו, על פי הטעמים:
כִּי כֹה אָמַר רָם וְנִשָּׂא, שֹׁכֵן עַד וְקָדוֹשׁ שְׁמוֹ, מָרוֹם וְקָדוֹשׁ אֶשְׁכּוֹן.
כלומר ה' הוא שוכן עד, שמו קדוש, והוא אמר שהוא ישכון, כלומר שהוא שוכן ב'מרום' (העתיד משמעותו הווה, כמו הנה לא ינום ולא ישן שומר ישראל).

לפיכך הפיסוק הנכון הוא:
שׁוֹכֵן עַד, מָרוֹם; וְקָדוֹשׁ שְׁמוֹ. – כלומר, ה' הוא שוכן עד (כבפסוק),
הוא שוכן גם במרום (כדבריו בסוף הפסוק),
וענין אחר - קדוש שמו (כבפסוק). ע"כ.
פרו' שמחה קוגוט: היכן אמור להתפרסם הוויכוח המצורף? ב"היבטים" הקרוב? אכן דנתי בפסוק זה בספרי על הטעמים והפרשנות בעמ' 139, 216, 238 ואין בוויכוח כאן אף לא פרט אחד שלא הובא שם (זולתי ההבנה השגויה של כוונת הטעמים המוצגת בסוגרים ע"י הרב אליהו ונדחית בצדק ע"י הרב לויפר).
אשר לציטוט הפסוק בשחרית של שבתות וחגים -- דומה שזו דוגמה נוספת להשתלטות המנגינה הרווחת על התוכן, ומוטב שהחזנים ישתלטו על המנגינה ויכפו עליה את ההפסקות הנכונות.
בברכה חמה, שמחה קוגוט
עתה נביא את דברי המפרשים.
ר' יוסף קרא: אע"פ שמקום ישיבתו על כסא רם ונשא, ראיתי ששוליו מלאים את ההיכל.
ראב"ע: רם ונשא - תואר הכסא, לא כאשר אמרו רבים. והטעם, שהוא למעלה מהחיות, כאשר אפרש בספר יחזקאל.
גם רד"ק ור' אליעזר מבלגנצי מפרשים שהכסא הוא רם ונשא. וגם הגר"א בפירושו על ישעיה.