וַיֹּ֣אמֶר שָׁאוּל֩ לְנֹשֵׂ֨א כֵלָ֜יו שְׁלֹ֥ף חַרְבְּךָ֣ ׀ וְדָקְרֵ֣נִי בָ֗הּ פֶּן־יָ֠בוֹאוּ הָעֲרֵלִ֨ים הָאֵ֤לֶּה וּדְקָרֻ֙נִי֙ וְהִתְעַלְּלוּ־בִ֔י וְלֹ֤א אָבָה֙ נֹשֵׂ֣א כֵלָ֔יו כִּ֥י יָרֵ֖א מְאֹ֑ד וַיִּקַּ֤ח שָׁאוּל֙ אֶת־הַחֶ֔רֶב וַיִּפֹּ֖ל עָלֶֽיהָ׃
И сказал Саул оруженосцу своему: 'Возьми свой меч и воткни меня в него; чтобы эти необрезанные не пришли и не проткнули меня и не высмеяли меня.'Но его оруженосец не будет; потому что он очень боялся. И взял Саул меч свой и пал на него.
Rabbeinu Bahya
According to the discipline of vocalisations there are seven gradations in the vowels [not including semi-vowels which are not audible but which nonetheless are not part of the consonants]. The vowel kametz ranks as highest of these seven levels. It is followed in descending order by patach, tzeyre, segol, cholem shuruk, and chirik. The entire Torah is structured around these seven vowels which affect pronunciation of the words. They are also known as "seven syllables", or "seven sounds", concerning which David said in Psalm 29 [known as the hymn in honour of the giving of the Torah. קול ה', “the voice or the sound of G’d,” occurs seven times.] This is also the meaning of Shemot Rabbah 28,4 that the Torah was given with seven קולות, “sounds.” Concerning these seven sounds, Solomon said in Proverbs 9,1 חצבה עמודיה שבעה, “she has hewn her seven pillars.” These seven sounds are the foundation upon which the whole structure rests.
The difference between the vowel kametz and the vowel patach (otherwise found in the word “adonay”) is merely a single “dot,” and usually such a dot is perceived as an allusion to the original “dot” of matter which was the beginning of the creative process of this universe. [the “dot” is equated in kabbalistic jargon with the letter י, itself an allusion to the ten emanations.] This is the mystical reason why such a dot (in the way we write the vowels) serves seven different purposes. When you place such a dot on top of a consonant it produces the vowel cholam. When you place it in the middle of the consonant ו the result is the vowel shuruk. If you add the dot to the vowel patach, the result will be the vowel kametz. If you add a dot to the vowel chirik, you get the vowel tzeyre. If you add a dot to the vowel tzeyre the result is the vowel segol. If you add a dot to the semi-vowel sheva the result is the vowel kubutz. So you have seven different vowels merely by changing a single “dot.”
Now to the letters themselves. If you insert (fill in the missing blank) a dot inside the letter ה it turns it into a ח. If you add a dot to the left side top of the letter ו it becomes a ז. If you add a dot to make the base of the letter כ protrude, it turns into the letter ב. If you add a dot on the right top of the letter ר it turns into the letter ד. We can understand therefore what the sages mean when they say that an extra dot or a missing dot is liable to destroy the universe. (compare Sotah 20).
Although, at first glance, it appears that there is only a minute difference between spelling the word adonay or adonoy, (and in the sephardic pronunciation this difference is not even audible), there are profound differences in the meaning of the word as a result of misspelling it and consequently misunderstanding its meaning. Here are a few examples of where such minor misspellings have a profound effect. Joshua 3,6 speaks of the ארון הברית, ”the ark of the covenant.” When spelled (correctly) with the vowel patach, the word ארון, ark, is a possessive of the word הברית, “G’d’s covenant.” If spelled incorrectly with the vowel kametz, this would convert the ark into being the covenant. In Exodus 23,20 we have the verse הנה אנכי שולח מלאך “here I am going to send an angel.” The word מלאך is vocalised with the vowel kametz as it is not in the possessive clause. Whenever the word מלאך is in the possessive clause it must be vocalised with the vowel patach. At the end of a verse or at the cantillation etnachta, the vowel patach is always changed to kametz to indicate that the word is in its own right and is not a possessive clause which would be presumed otherwise. The patach always points to the word which follows it, making the word with that vowel at the end secondary to what follows. (Rabbi Chavell quotes Mateh Moshe on laws of prayers who quotes our author, and adds that when the word אדני is spelled with the vowel chirik at the end, it means “my ‘personal’ lord,” as opposed to acknowledging that “He is the ruler of the whole universe”). The reason that in our verse you do not find the word adonay vocalised with a patach is best understood by remembering that if Avraham had indeed addressed only Michael he would have had to say adonee, “my (personal) lord.” Neither the vowel patach nor the vowel kametz would have been appropriate. It would be incongruous to vocalise the word אדני when used as a reference to G’d with the vowel patach, as this would imply that G’d is in some kind of subordinate relationship to anyone as suggested by the possessive clause represented by that vowel. In short, if someone exchanges the kametz under this word for a patach he cannot escape being guilty of one or two things. 1) He is a heretic; 2) or he completely distorts the meaning of the verse in which this word appears.
Let us use Genesis 18,23 as an example. If someone were to place the vowel kametz instead of the vowel patach under the letter ה in האף תספה (which is perceived as turning what follows into a question), he would completely distort the meaning of the whole verse, turning it into a statement, i.e. an accusation against G’d. Let us look at another example. in Job 8,3. In הא-ל יעות משפט; the letter ה is vocalised with the vowel patach. As it stands the verse is a question and means: “is it possible that G’d will pervert justice?” If you were to place the vowel kametz under the letter ה in the word הא-ל in that verse it would turn the entire phrase into a statement denying G’d’s justice, i.e. into heresy. Another way of explaining what we have been saying is that the vowel kametz describes a true state of affairs, something objective, whereas the vowel patach describes something relative, a subjective truth. (Rabbi Chavell conjectures that the last statement may be based on David Kimchi, though he does not supply a source for this.) An example of the accuracy of this claim is Samuel II 1,10 (where the Amalekite lad relates to David that he had complied with Saul’s wish to give him the coup de grace so he would not fall into the hands of the Philistines as a prisoner) ואעמד עליו ואמתתהו כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “so I stood over him and killed him for I knew that he would not live.” In that verse the words ואעמד עליו, “I stood over him,” are an absolute truth; the words כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “for I knew he would not live” are a relative truth. The word ואעמד begins with the vowel kametz under the letter ו, whereas the corresponding letter ו in the word ואמתתהו, has the vowel patach to signify that this statement was only a relative truth. We had read in Samuel I 31,4 that Saul had actually committed suicide when his arms-bearer refused to finish him off. So the statement of the Amalekite lad who claimed to have killed him was not an objective truth. All of the foregoing is part of the wisdom contained in the Holy Torah and the Holy Tongue. This is the reason that the relationship of consonants and vowels to one another has been compared to the relationship between body and soul as pointed out in the Sefer HaBahir by Rabbi Nechunyah ben HaKana. The vowels, i.e. the absence of correct vocalization invalidates the text just as the absence of a soul paralyses the body. The body is compared to an animal without a rider. The soul supplies the animal with its rider. In a similar manner the vowels are what complete the consonants. We find a statement in Megillah 3 that the words ושום שכל in Nechemiah 8,8 are a reference to what is spelled out in the Holy Scriptures, especially the vocalization.
The difference between the vowel kametz and the vowel patach (otherwise found in the word “adonay”) is merely a single “dot,” and usually such a dot is perceived as an allusion to the original “dot” of matter which was the beginning of the creative process of this universe. [the “dot” is equated in kabbalistic jargon with the letter י, itself an allusion to the ten emanations.] This is the mystical reason why such a dot (in the way we write the vowels) serves seven different purposes. When you place such a dot on top of a consonant it produces the vowel cholam. When you place it in the middle of the consonant ו the result is the vowel shuruk. If you add the dot to the vowel patach, the result will be the vowel kametz. If you add a dot to the vowel chirik, you get the vowel tzeyre. If you add a dot to the vowel tzeyre the result is the vowel segol. If you add a dot to the semi-vowel sheva the result is the vowel kubutz. So you have seven different vowels merely by changing a single “dot.”
Now to the letters themselves. If you insert (fill in the missing blank) a dot inside the letter ה it turns it into a ח. If you add a dot to the left side top of the letter ו it becomes a ז. If you add a dot to make the base of the letter כ protrude, it turns into the letter ב. If you add a dot on the right top of the letter ר it turns into the letter ד. We can understand therefore what the sages mean when they say that an extra dot or a missing dot is liable to destroy the universe. (compare Sotah 20).
Although, at first glance, it appears that there is only a minute difference between spelling the word adonay or adonoy, (and in the sephardic pronunciation this difference is not even audible), there are profound differences in the meaning of the word as a result of misspelling it and consequently misunderstanding its meaning. Here are a few examples of where such minor misspellings have a profound effect. Joshua 3,6 speaks of the ארון הברית, ”the ark of the covenant.” When spelled (correctly) with the vowel patach, the word ארון, ark, is a possessive of the word הברית, “G’d’s covenant.” If spelled incorrectly with the vowel kametz, this would convert the ark into being the covenant. In Exodus 23,20 we have the verse הנה אנכי שולח מלאך “here I am going to send an angel.” The word מלאך is vocalised with the vowel kametz as it is not in the possessive clause. Whenever the word מלאך is in the possessive clause it must be vocalised with the vowel patach. At the end of a verse or at the cantillation etnachta, the vowel patach is always changed to kametz to indicate that the word is in its own right and is not a possessive clause which would be presumed otherwise. The patach always points to the word which follows it, making the word with that vowel at the end secondary to what follows. (Rabbi Chavell quotes Mateh Moshe on laws of prayers who quotes our author, and adds that when the word אדני is spelled with the vowel chirik at the end, it means “my ‘personal’ lord,” as opposed to acknowledging that “He is the ruler of the whole universe”). The reason that in our verse you do not find the word adonay vocalised with a patach is best understood by remembering that if Avraham had indeed addressed only Michael he would have had to say adonee, “my (personal) lord.” Neither the vowel patach nor the vowel kametz would have been appropriate. It would be incongruous to vocalise the word אדני when used as a reference to G’d with the vowel patach, as this would imply that G’d is in some kind of subordinate relationship to anyone as suggested by the possessive clause represented by that vowel. In short, if someone exchanges the kametz under this word for a patach he cannot escape being guilty of one or two things. 1) He is a heretic; 2) or he completely distorts the meaning of the verse in which this word appears.
Let us use Genesis 18,23 as an example. If someone were to place the vowel kametz instead of the vowel patach under the letter ה in האף תספה (which is perceived as turning what follows into a question), he would completely distort the meaning of the whole verse, turning it into a statement, i.e. an accusation against G’d. Let us look at another example. in Job 8,3. In הא-ל יעות משפט; the letter ה is vocalised with the vowel patach. As it stands the verse is a question and means: “is it possible that G’d will pervert justice?” If you were to place the vowel kametz under the letter ה in the word הא-ל in that verse it would turn the entire phrase into a statement denying G’d’s justice, i.e. into heresy. Another way of explaining what we have been saying is that the vowel kametz describes a true state of affairs, something objective, whereas the vowel patach describes something relative, a subjective truth. (Rabbi Chavell conjectures that the last statement may be based on David Kimchi, though he does not supply a source for this.) An example of the accuracy of this claim is Samuel II 1,10 (where the Amalekite lad relates to David that he had complied with Saul’s wish to give him the coup de grace so he would not fall into the hands of the Philistines as a prisoner) ואעמד עליו ואמתתהו כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “so I stood over him and killed him for I knew that he would not live.” In that verse the words ואעמד עליו, “I stood over him,” are an absolute truth; the words כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “for I knew he would not live” are a relative truth. The word ואעמד begins with the vowel kametz under the letter ו, whereas the corresponding letter ו in the word ואמתתהו, has the vowel patach to signify that this statement was only a relative truth. We had read in Samuel I 31,4 that Saul had actually committed suicide when his arms-bearer refused to finish him off. So the statement of the Amalekite lad who claimed to have killed him was not an objective truth. All of the foregoing is part of the wisdom contained in the Holy Torah and the Holy Tongue. This is the reason that the relationship of consonants and vowels to one another has been compared to the relationship between body and soul as pointed out in the Sefer HaBahir by Rabbi Nechunyah ben HaKana. The vowels, i.e. the absence of correct vocalization invalidates the text just as the absence of a soul paralyses the body. The body is compared to an animal without a rider. The soul supplies the animal with its rider. In a similar manner the vowels are what complete the consonants. We find a statement in Megillah 3 that the words ושום שכל in Nechemiah 8,8 are a reference to what is spelled out in the Holy Scriptures, especially the vocalization.
Da'at Zekenim
ואך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, “however for your own life-blood I will demand an accounting;” this is to be understood as an accounting for their death by people who deliberately strangle themselves as an act of suicide, avoiding the shedding of their blood in the process. B’reshit Rabbah, 34,13, explains the need for this verse as being that we might think that when Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, (Daniel chapter 3 where their Babylonian names are used) agreed to be thrown into a fiery pit, clearly committing suicide, albeit as an act of sanctifying the name of the Lord, this was forbidden also. The reason that this verse was introduced by the word: אך, was to exclude such suicides, even that of King Sha-ul, who did not want to give the Philistines the satisfaction of having killed a king who had been crowned with the approval of the Lord. (Samuel I 31,4) In both of these instances the victims did not execute themselves but were executed or meant to be executed by someone else. Committing suicide with one’s own hands is an absolute no no. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon bar Avraham, also known as אוכמן, the Rabbis did not make allowances for what King Sha-ul had done. There is a true story of a Rabbi, who at the time of persecutions of Jews practicing their faith, personally killed many young Jewish children in order to forestall the Christians from raising them in the Christian faith. One of his Rabbinical colleagues was very angry at that Rabbi on that account, referring to him as a murderer. The first Rabbi did not heed the second Rabbi’s warning not to become a murderer. Thereupon the Rabbi opposed to killing the infants said that if he had been right, his colleague would die a violent and painful death. Not only did the gentiles seize and kill that Rabbi-(who had killed the infants), but they stripped off his skin and placed sand between it and his flesh. Shortly thereafter, the decree forbidding the Jews to practice their faith was cancelled. If the first Rabbi had not killed all the infants, they would have been saved when the decree was cancelled.
Tur HaArokh
ואך את דמכם, “however your blood, etc.” It is possible that when King Sha-ul committed suicide by telling his arms bearer to finish him off (Samuel I 31,4) he thought that he committed a meritorious act denying the Philistines the boast that they had killed the anointed one of G’d. This is why the Torah uses the diminutive word אך, when writing this legislation, to tell us that there are situations, such as when Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah agreed to be thrown into the fiery furnace, that this was not considered suicide but [after consultation with the prophet Ezekiel Ed] an act of sanctifying the name of the Lord. . Commentators raised the question why we needed a special verse to sanction actions such as those by Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, as the correctness of their conduct was based on simple logic. By comparing their behaviour with the frogs which invaded Pharaoh’s and the Egyptians’ homes knowing that they were courting their own death by doing so. The answer given is that the analogy with the frogs is not foolproof as the frogs had not been commanded to by Pharaoh or Moses to injure or kill themselves. The word אך on the other hand, is also not sufficient excuse to exempt people such as Chananyah and colleagues, unless we also invoke the logic by comparing them partially with the frogs. The word אך would only teach us that Chananyah and others like him would not be held culpable for such acts of suicide, not that they committed a meritorious deed. This is why we require both the word אך and the example of the frogs to teach us that under the proper circumstances suicide can be a מצוה, meritorious deed.