<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+3"><br>
<br>
The word haleluhu appears 16 times in the Tana"kh, all of them in
T'hillim. In fourteen of the occurences, the word hal'luhu is
followed by a word whose first letter is one of the bg"d kf"t
letters. Without going into the intricacies of dikduk, one can
say that, in general,</font><font size="+3"> if the word hal'luhu
has a ta'am mafsik</font><font size="+3"> the following bg"d kf"t
has a dagesh. if the two words are connected by a ta'am m'chabber
the bg"d kf"t is rafa<br>
<br>
Thirteen of the occurences are concentrated in two p'rakim of
T'hillim, 148 and 150. Four of them in 148, the longer perek and
9 in 150, the short last perek of Tehilim. As these p'rakim are
read daily in pesukei d'zimra, one doesn't have to be a
tillim-zuger to know them.<br>
<br>
According to R' Wolf Heidenheim in his mei-iti t'hilim and in all
of his siddurim, all of the bgd" kf"t have d'geshim and all of the
hal'luhu's have a ta'am mafsik.<br>
<br>
Almost all tanakhim published after the Roedelheim, including 1859
Shocken mikraot g'dolot</font><font size="+3"> </font><font
size="+3">(Shlomo Netter), Koren, etc., </font><font size="+3">have
one change:</font><font size="+3"> (Sorry, I don't have an
Artscroll to check.) In 148, they have hal'luhu khol mal'akhav.
And the hal'luhu has a ta'am m'chaber so one can't tell which came
first, the chicken or the egg.<br>
<br>
And now to the modern world with many more available sources: All
the accurate kitvei yad, including of course the Keter and the
Leningrad codex have two more differences. In 150, we have
hal'luhu vigvurotav and hal'luhu v'tziltz'lei shama'. Assuming we
know the correct version, and find it in Breuer and the Bar-Ilan
Keter. BTW, the Ish Matzliach siddur also has it "correct".<br>
<br>
In all three occurences without dagesh, the hal'luhu has a ta'am
m'chabber. <br>
<br>
All three are also in short sentences with two hal'luhu's the
first without dagesh and the second with. Just like mi khamokha
ba-elim H', mi kamokha neddar bakodesh and its many explanations
which never quite satisfied me.<br>
<br>
Any ideas other than the inaccuracies of copiers and printers? Am
I the only one who finds these things interesting?</font><br>
<font size="+3"><br>
<br>
bivrakha,<br>
<br>
David<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>