I see in all sidurim in nussach of retse (BHMZ of Shabbat) "לשבת בו ולנוח בו". But recently some books changed the nussach to "לשבות בו ולנוח בו"

So far I believed that the kamats in place of Cholam was right and I tried to understand. In Rashi Ytro I just discovered some thing similar (Shemot 19, 24):

וְהַכֹּֽהֲנִ֣ים וְהָעָ֗ם אַל-יֶֽהֶרְס֛וּ לַֽעֲלֹ֥ת אֶל-יְהוָֹ֖ה פֶּן-יִפְרָץ-בָּֽם: ‏

Rashi: One Precision, Rashi calls "Melopum" what we call nowaday "Holam"

פן יפרץ בם. אף על פי שהוא נקוד חטף קמ"ץ, אינו זז מגזרתו, כך דרך כל תיבה שנקודתה מלאפו"ם, כשהיא באה במקף, משתנה הנקוד לחטף קמ"ץ: ‏

despite that the "יפרץ" is ponctuated (under the letter Resh) "Chataf kamats", he do not change signification. This is the rule: All word which is ponctuated with Melopum when it precedes a "Makaf", the vowel changes to "Chataf Kakmats".

May be that Lishbot bo is "לשבת-בו" and all is resolved.

But apparently this is not obvious. Some books changed the nussach to "לשבות בו ולנוח בו". If someone understand clearly the rule, I will be grateful to learn from him.

  • "apparently this is not obvious" What is not obvious?
    – Double AA
    Jun 14, 2016 at 2:36
  • @DoubleAA that we have a chataf kamats
    – kouty
    Jun 14, 2016 at 3:03
  • Can someone translate "milopum" and "makaf", please?
    – DanF
    Jun 14, 2016 at 14:29
  • @DanF Melopum; nowaday this is a Shuruk. "וּ" Makaf is "-"
    – kouty
    Jun 14, 2016 at 14:33
  • Can you edit in a sample of where you have seen each version? I see the point of your argument, but if you are comparing Rashi"s rule, I would like to see some siddur hyphenate the words. Otherwise, your comparison doesn't really have much strength.
    – DanF
    Jun 14, 2016 at 14:44

2 Answers 2


The Kamatz-Katan version was introduced by R SZ Hanau (Shaarei Tefillah 300) by comparison with verses like Genesis 42:10. His Siddur indeed has a Makkaf. Later editions seem to have either taken the Makkaf as assumed or omitted it through ignorance.

It seems the original version had the full Cholam.

  • 1
    Af Al pi Sheein reaya laddavar, zeycher laddavar. I found in siddur Sefaradi Torat Emet online "נִשְׁבּוֹת בּוֹ וְנָנוּחַ בּוֹ וְנִתְעַנֵּג בּוֹ כְּמִצְוַת חֻקֵּי רְצוֹנָךְ"
    – kouty
    Jun 14, 2016 at 18:30
  • I see that RZH has a kamatz katan and that he mentions others have a cholam, and certainly he introduced many things, but can you support your claim this was one of them (as opposed to his relying on older versions for this kamatz katan)?
    – msh210
    Jun 14, 2016 at 20:03
  • @msh210 If he doesn't mention manuscript evidence, it's pretty safe to assume he wasn't using it. I don't have a study of old manuscripts to support me, but even if there are a couple with this variant, RSZH's work in particular is certainly what popularized it into modern works.
    – Double AA
    Jun 14, 2016 at 23:16

Refer to DoubleAA's answer regarding the original version. It seems that originally, the usage was לשבות, and the use of the kamatz kattan with a makaf came in later.

Since you questioned the general usage of the kamatz kattan by comparing it with Rashi's explanation, This site explains the general use of the kamatz katan.

A Kamatz is Kamatz Katan if the syllable is unstressed and closed.

The word לשבת does not fit this rule, as the accent is on the last syllable in this word.

The article cites other Torah based rules, which I won't cite here, explicitly. The point is that none of those rules would seem to apply if you assume the current printed versions without the makaf.

So, in short, either form - without the makaf it should be לשבות. If you want to use לשבת with the kamatz katan, then it needs a makaf. As DoubleAA states, it seems that most Ahskenazic siddurim are printing it incorrectly, and have us (ignorantly) read an error.

  • "The word לשבת does not fit this rule" why?
    – kouty
    Jun 14, 2016 at 15:13
  • @kouty Do you see a rule listed in my source that would make that word a kamatz kattan without the use of a makaf?
    – DanF
    Jun 14, 2016 at 15:46
  • See @DoubleAA's answer, above. It is a better answer than mine. Regardless, it confirms my analysis, above. If you are satisfied with his answer, please confirm. I shall delete mine afterwards.
    – DanF
    Jun 14, 2016 at 19:46
  • I am satisfied by your answer too. there is not redundancy between the two. For me you don't to remove your answer.
    – kouty
    Jun 14, 2016 at 19:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .