Introduction: Chapter 5 and Its Opening Verse
Chapter 5 of Kohelet opens with a warning regarding the power of speech: how a person speaks before the Creator of the universe, and how he must guard his mouth and his heart. The opening verse is an entire treatise on matters of fear of Heaven (yirat Shamayim), accepting Divine judgment (kabbalat hadin), and prayer. From it, we will also explore a foundational discussion of the Ibn Ezra regarding the liturgical text of prayer and piyyutim. Let us begin with the verse itself.
אַל־תְּבַהֵל עַל־פִּיךָ וְלִבְּךָ אַל־יְמַהֵר לְהוֹצִיא דָבָר לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים כִּי הָאֱלֹהִים בַּשָּׁמַיִם וְאַתָּה עַל־הָאָרֶץ עַל־כֵּן יִהְיוּ דְבָרֶיךָ מְעַטִּים׃ - Do not be rash with your mouth, and let not your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are upon earth; therefore let your words be few.
"Do Not Be Rash with Your Mouth": When Troubles Arrive
The Pesikta Zutarta explains: If troubles befall a person, he must not speak improperly about his Creator. This is the meaning of "Do not be rash with your mouth" - when a person faces distress, he often speaks out of panic and dismay, and Kohelet therefore warns against hastily voicing complaints against the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He. The prime example is Iyov (Job), of whom it is said: "In all this, Iyov did not sin with his lips." He had every reason in the world to complain, yet he did not sin with his lips. And when his wife urged him, "Bless [a euphemism for curse] God and die," he answered her: "You speak as one of the base women speaks. Shall we indeed accept the good from God, and not accept the bad?" In other words, even when suffering distress - do not be rash with your mouth.
"For God Is in Heaven and You Are upon Earth"
The Pesikta Zutarta continues: "For God is in heaven" - meaning He has absolute dominion over you; He is your Maker who established you, He elevates and abases, He dispossesses and enriches, and you have no right to question His ways. Therefore, let your words be few.
Rashi adds that this is not merely praise of the Omnipresent, but also a stark warning. "For He is in heaven and you are upon earth" - and even if a weak person is positioned above and a mighty warrior below, the fear of the weak hangs over the warrior. The rule of warfare is that whoever holds the high ground possesses a strategic advantage; being above, he has far more leverage to overpower an enemy advancing from below. This is why capturing the Golan Heights was so complex and difficult, exacting such a heavy toll in casualties. If that is true when the weaker party is above, how much more so when the Almighty is above - possessing both supreme strength and the advantage of height! You are weak, and the Holy One, blessed be He, is all-powerful; He is high in heaven and you are down here on earth. In plain terms: you have every reason to remain silent, to recognize that whatever Hashem has done is just, and if you should dare, Heaven forbid, to question His ways, you will bring nothing upon yourself but harm. Therefore, let your words be few.
"I Never Asked Questions"
Rabbi Raphael of Bershad was once asked by what virtue he was granted long life. He told them: Through everything that befell me, I never questioned the Master of the Universe. And why? Because when a person asks questions, he is summoned Above so that they can provide him with the answers. I never asked questions; whatever Hashem does is all for the good - and therefore, they never summoned me to give me answers. A person must know that Hashem's judgment is just, and even if he cannot comprehend it, Rav Saadia Gaon already stated: "If I knew Him, I would be Him" - if I could fathom and understand the Creator of the universe, I myself would be a creator of worlds! Rather, Hashem knows things that we do not know, and for this reason one must accept His judgment with equanimity.
"And Let Not Your Heart Be Hasty" - In Thought as Well
We can further connect the continuation of the verse to this very theme. The Pesikta cited the example of Iyov: "In all this, Iyov did not sin with his lips" - and Chazal remark: with his lips he did not sin, but in his heart he did sin. To this, Kohelet immediately adds: "And let not your heart be hasty to utter a word before God." First he addressed the mouth - that which a person utters with his lips, in which Iyov did not stumble; and now he adds that in your heart as well, take care not to harbor doubts or grievances against the Omnipresent. Instead, accept the decree of Heaven with love and justify His judgment: "For God is in heaven and you are upon earth; therefore let your words be few."
Levels of Speech: Idle Talk
Some commentators explain that an additional fundamental principle regarding human speech is stated here, encompassing three levels of speech. The first level deals with idle talk, and concerning this it is said, "Do not be rash with your mouth, and let not your heart be hasty to utter a word before God." After all, even when a person stands before a mortal king of flesh and blood, he counts his words, watches his movements, and weighs every syllable with precision. How much more so must one be careful when standing before the Omnipresent - and this is what is meant by "before God": in every situation you are before God; you are always standing before a King.
And if you should say: "I see the king, but I do not see God" - that is truly one of our greatest challenges, which causes us to lose our awe, because we do not see God, whereas we see the king. This is also our difficulty with the Day of Judgment: in any ordinary court proceeding, even a traffic trial, you see the judge; but when the exalted and lofty King sits upon the throne of judgment and the books of the living and the dead are opened before Him - that we do not see.
Yet if you reflect, you will see that this is precisely the main reason you must be even more cautious. For if you fear a flesh-and-blood king, that king is just like you: he too is made of flesh and blood, formed of the same earthly clay, incapable of attaining a stature inherently superior to yours, and unable to escape death at the end of his days to live forever. In simple terms, he is formed of clay just like me; he merely holds a position of authority at the moment that evokes fear - and even so, you stand before him in dread and awe. How then can you stand before Hashem, who dwells in the highest heavens? This is the answer provided in the verse: "For God is in heaven and you are on earth" - the very fact that you do not see Him proves that the Holy One, blessed be He, sees you while you cannot see Him, and that His supremacy over you is absolute. This is not a situational superiority like that of an earthly king, who holds an office while I do not; the Holy One, blessed be He, is an entirely different order of reality. How much more so must you revere and fear Him, refraining from speaking improper words or uttering empty speech, and taking care to avoid idle talk - "therefore let your words be few."
Do Not Say: "God Is in Heaven" - Reading the Verse as an Argument
The Porat Yosef, cited also by the Me'am Lo'ez, explains that this is read as a single continuous statement: "Do not be rash with your mouth, and let not your heart be hasty to utter a word before God" - namely, to claim that "God is in heaven and you are on earth." That is, do not say that since God is in heaven and you are on earth, He is far away and one may therefore speak freely. Do not view this as an argument or justification; rather, be careful with what you utter from your mouth, for the whole earth is full of His glory, and therefore let your words be few.
He explains this based on what is related in the Gemara: there was an incident involving Levi, one of the sages of the Talmud, who decreed a fast, yet no rain fell. He cried out before Him: "Master of the Universe, You ascended and sat on high, and You show no mercy to Your children!" - as if lodging a grievance against the Holy One, blessed be He, suggesting: You sat up high and forgot about us. And the rain fell. He succeeded in bringing down rain, but he paid a heavy price: he was punished and became lame. Rabbi Elazar said: A person should never cast reproachful words toward Heaven, for a great man - and notice that he succeeded in bringing down rain, proof that he was indeed a great man - cast reproachful words toward Heaven and became lame. This is what Shlomo is saying here: let your words before Hashem always be few. Do not say, "God is in heaven and you are on earth," in the manner of Levi - as if to say, You have abandoned the earth, You do not watch over us, You do not send us rain. Do not utter such words, for you may suffer harm from it; see what happened to Levi when he spoke in such a way.
Ibn Ezra: Praying Serenely and in Clear Language
Ibn Ezra explains: "Do not be rash with your mouth" - your mouth should not utter words before Him in His house in a panicked rush. That is, when you come to pray before the Holy One, blessed be He, pray with composure and serenity, not in haste. "And let not your heart be hasty" - because a person must pray in clear language, for God stands over you, seeing you and hearing your words; He is in heaven in the highest heights and you are on earth, He is in the highest place and you are in the lowest - therefore let your words be few, so that you do not endanger yourself.
Thus we find with the Kohen Gadol, who would recite a brief prayer. For when one lengthens his prayer excessively, he is liable to say things that are improper; but when you recite a short prayer, you choose your words carefully. It is like someone writing a telegram: people are no longer familiar with this today, but in the past, when writing a telegram, every word and letter was counted, and each letter was paid for individually, so people wrote concisely and with utmost brevity. So too in prayer - do not rush to multiply words before Hashem. Our Sages say concerning Chana that because she multiplied words before the Omnipresent, Shmuel ultimately died before his time, living only fifty-two years. For where words abound, transgression is not lacking: a person will stumble in his speech and say something improper. Therefore, let your words be few - when words are few, they are more purposeful, and one will not stumble through an inappropriate remark or an improper phrasing.
From Here to Ibn Ezra's Critique of the Piyutim of HaKalir
At this point, we turn to another matter that forms part of Ibn Ezra's commentary here. Although it may seem like a departure from the main theme of the book, Ibn Ezra's remarks on this subject are fundamental and frequently cited, and we have reached them in the order of our study. Before examining his critique of the piyutim of Rabbi Eliezer HaKalir and how this connects to our verse, let us first explore who HaKalir was.
Many of the liturgical poems (*piyyutim*) in Ashkenazic siddurim and machzorim were composed by the Kallir: Rabbi Elazar HaKallir, or ben HaKallir - there are several opinions as to his exact identity, for his true identity remains unknown to us. Some say he lived in the Middle Ages, while others say he lived during the era of the Tannaim; some identify him as Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai - and this was the position of the holy Ari; and some say he was Rabbi Elazar ben Arach. The view more widely accepted among scholars is that he lived in the seventh century of the Common Era, roughly one thousand three hundred years ago.
The holy Ari held the Kallir's writings in very high esteem. Rav Chaim Vital writes in *Sha'ar HaKavanot* (in the discourses on *Aleinu LeShabe'ach*): Know that my master of blessed memory - the holy Ari - would not recite any hymn (*pizmon*), *piyyut*, or supplication composed by later authorities (*Acharonim*), such as Rabbi Shlomo ibn Gabirol and his peers, because these later figures did not know the ways of Kabbalah and did not comprehend what they were saying, composing hymns based solely on eloquence of language and poetic rhetoric. But he would recite the prayers, supplications, and hymns instituted by the early sages (*Rishonim*), such as the prayer of Rabbi Akiva, peace be upon him, the prayer of Rabbi Elazar ben Arach, and the prayer of Rabbi Nechunya ben HaKaneh, for all of them were initiated into the secret of Hashem; and similarly, he would recite all the *piyyutim* and hymns instituted by Rabbi Elazar HaKallir - because he held that he was one of the ancients, Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. It is well known that the holy Ari prayed all year according to the Sephardic rite (*Nusach Sephard*), but on the High Holidays according to the Ashkenazic rite.
The Language of the Kallir: A Difficult Style
The Kallir's language is exceptionally difficult. You will hardly find an Ashkenazic *Selichot* book without an accompanying commentary, because the phrasing is exceedingly complex. Among Sephardim, the *Selichot* are straightforward and lucid; anyone with a basic knowledge of the Holy Tongue understands what he is saying: "We have come to implore Your favor, for lovingkindness and truth precede Your countenance; please do not put us to shame, please do not turn us away empty-handed from Your presence" - one does not need an encyclopedia to comprehend what was said. But someone reading the language of the Kallir cannot tell his right hand from his left:
אבן חוג מצוק נשיה, תהום רבה צול שאיה, בפינת ראש סוד שלישיה, שוטטו שאון בה לשעיה. גבעת שורש מאוסת בונים, רובעה היום מארבעה אבנים, דמעות מבכה על בנים, קשבה מנהי אם הבנים. - "Stone of the sphere, crag of oblivion, the great deep, abyss of desolation; at the cornerstone the council of the three, they roamed shouting in it to lay it waste. The root hill rejected by builders, squared today from four stones, weeping tears over children, attend to the lament of the mother of children."
Many commentaries have been written on the Kallir's *piyyutim*, and on another occasion we will delve into the explanation of these words. Here, we will only point out that Ibn Ezra revolts against this style of writing. Not only against the Kallir, but he takes him as the primary example because many of his *piyyutim* became famous, and he subsequently mentions other varieties of *piyyutim* to show how deficient their phrasing is and how flawed their method of composition is.
Ibn Ezra's Introduction: A Fixed Place and Fixed Times
Thus he writes: Abraham the author said: Behold, I have undertaken to speak, for because the glory of the Omnipresent fills every place and a person cannot guard his conduct in every place, a fixed place was prepared for his prayer, and he is obligated to honor it. That is, since the whole earth is full of His glory and one cannot honor Hashem properly everywhere, a designated place was provided for us in which to honor Him - a fixed place of prayer where a person may commune with his Creator.
And he continues: A person is also obligated to thank and praise his God at every moment, for His lovingkindness is with him at every fraction of a moment, giving him life and granting him the pleasure of sensory awareness. Yet because man is preoccupied with worldly affairs, he cannot thank Hashem at every moment; therefore, they instituted specific times for him - known hours: evening, morning, and noon. And this is fascinating: they established the times based on the course of the sun, for anyone with eyes can recognize when the sun rises, when it declines, and when it sets. In their day, not everyone had a watch; so you are told: Look and see when the sun rises, that is Shacharit; see when it sets, that is Maariv; and during the day, once half an hour has passed after midday, that too is visible - when the sun is past the meridian - and from that moment on, you can pray Minchah until evening. Anyone can observe this wherever he happens to be.
From here stems his discussion directly pertaining to our verse: Therefore, a person who prays must guard the openings of his mouth and reflect in his heart that he stands before a King Who holds the power to grant life and to put to death. Consequently, it is forbidden for a person to pray and insert into his prayer *piyyutim* whose basic meaning he does not know. This is precisely the theme of the verse: "Do not be rash with your mouth, and let not your heart be hasty to utter a word before God" - do not utter words when you do not understand what you are saying. Nor should one rely on the author and his original intent, for there is no man who does not err; it is possible that the author himself made a mistake in what he wrote, or that copyists introduced errors and corrupted the text, which is why you cannot understand it.
Four Difficulties - The First: Riddles and Parables
And as a general rule he states: In the *piyyutim* of Rabbi Eliezer HaKallir, may he rest in honor, there are four difficult features. The first feature is that most of his liturgical poems are riddles and parables. Even if you manage to decipher the language, you still have to figure out whom he is referring to, for he spoke in veiled allusions. Here is an example that the Maskilim frequently seized upon to mock the Kallir's *piyyutim* - though in truth there are certainly deep secrets in these words, as the holy Ari wrote, which is precisely why he would recite them. Those superficial people did not grasp the esoteric secrets and inner dimension, and heaven forbid that we should give a platform to those violators of the covenant; our purpose is solely to understand how enigmatic the phrasing is:
אץ קוצץ בן קוצץ, קצוצי לקצץ. בדיבור מפוצץ, רצוצי לרצץ. לץ בבוא לוצץ ללוצץ, פולץ ונתלוצץ. כעץ מחצצים לחצץ, כנץ על ציפור לנצץ. - The destroyer, son of a destroyer, hastened to cut down my severed ones; with crushing speech, to shatter my crushed ones; the scorner, coming to mock the mocker, quaked and was mocked; like wood hewn for shooting arrows, like a hawk swooping upon a bird to destroy.
This is a liturgical poem (krovatz) recited by Ashkenazim on Shabbat Zachor, and it speaks of Amalek. "Atz" - he hastened. And who is the "destroyer, son of a destroyer" [kotzetz ben kotzetz]? Some say this is related to *kotz* (thorn), for the Midrash compares Amalek to a thorn; some say he is called a "cutter" because he came to cut down the vine of Israel, seeking to annihilate the Jewish people, and he is "the son of a cutter" because his ancestor also sought to destroy us; and some say "cutter" because he would sever the circumcised members of Israel. "To cut down my severed ones" [ketzutzai lekatzetz] - against whom did he run? Against Israel. And why are they called "my severed ones"? Some explain that it is because they are circumcised, from the phrase "and you shall cut off [vekatzotah] her hand," which denotes cutting; some say "my severed ones" refers to those who were cast out and expelled from the protective clouds, against whom Amalek attacked as they left Egypt; and others say that Israel possesses a sealed and cut covenant with the Omnipresent, and it was them he came to cut down. Likewise, "with crushing speech, to shatter my crushed ones": some say that through his speech he scattered them, *lefotzetz* meaning to disperse; others say that Israel slackened their hands from the Torah, which is "like a hammer that shatters a rock," interpreting an ellipsis here - they weakened in Torah study, which is the shattering speech, and therefore Amalek came. And "my crushed ones" refers to those who left Egypt broken and crushed, and he came to shatter them and pursue them to strike them down. Thus his words are riddles, requiring a master builder to dismantle and decipher them, and this poses a great difficulty.
"To the Mirror He Shall Fold" - Is It Permissible to Speak in Obscure Rhetoric?
Ibn Ezra cites another liturgical poem: "To the mirror He shall fold, and months He shall double, for this day He cast a lot, and from Zion He shall reign." What is "to the mirror" [lir'i], and what is "He shall fold" [yakpil]? Some say "lir'i" refers to Mashiach, and "yakpil" means that Hashem will fold up the earth before him, spreading it out so that he can conquer all of it in an instant, just as He folded the land beneath Yaakov Avinu. "And months He shall double" - that we anticipate he will come quickly, as if Hashem would fold the months of the years and double them so that we traverse them in half the time. Others read it without a *yud* - "to my companion" [lere'i], or from the language of seeing, while "months He shall double" is an expression of concealment, referring to idolatry, which are "new ones that recently arrived." And others say it refers to the heavens, which are compared to a "cast mirror" [re'i mutzak], and "He shall double the new" - that He will fashion new heavens and a new earth.
Ibn Ezra rejects all of these explanations and asks: Is it conceivable that a person should speak in such obscure figures of speech? Would it ever enter one's mind to say, "There is no one in the world as wise as a wild donkey [ayir]," and then explain that *ayir* refers to a human being, as in "a wild donkey's colt is born a man," so that "none is as wise as an ayir" actually means none is as wise as a man? One cannot speak in such a manner. Or would someone say, "Fortunate is the nation that worships fire and bows down to the sun," and then explain that "fire" refers to Hashem, Blessed be He, as it is said, "For Hashem your God is a consuming fire," and "sun" as it is said, "For a sun and a shield is Hashem God"? Can one possibly say such a thing? Or "Blessed are You, Lion" instead of "Blessed are You, Hashem," because it is said that Hashem roars like a lion? One cannot speak using such metaphors when no one understands what you are talking about. Just as "none is as wise as an ayir" and "Blessed are You, Lion" are utter absurdities, so too one cannot speak in rhetorical expressions that carry no clear meaning to the reader.
And if you wish to act clever - why not learn from Shlomo, after whom there was no one as wise as he? The prayer that he prayed is renowned, its intention is clear, and anyone who knows the Holy Tongue can understand it; it contains neither riddles nor parables. So too Daniel, who was a "loosener of knots," thoroughly versed in language and in understanding hidden matters - and yet they prayed only in clear, explicit terms, despite being great sages who could have formulated their words in elevated and complex language. How much more so must one who prays on behalf of the multitude, who are not scholars, pray clearly, for the congregation needs to understand what is being said. Likewise, regarding all the weekday and sacred prayers instituted by the early sages - observe and you will see that they contain no riddles or parables at all; they are all lucid prayers.
"For This Day He Cast a Lot" - Three Objections
Furthermore, he attacks the content: What purpose is there in doubling the new heavens, or if they are two, doubling them? And how can one say about the Holy One, Blessed be He, "for this day He cast a lot"? Casting a lot implies that I do not know which day it will be and therefore I cast a lot - could it be that Hashem does not know which day it will be? That is one objection. Moreover, we only find "he cast a lot" said of the oppressor, Haman; how could you take an expression used for someone so wicked and attach it to Hashem? It is inappropriate to apply an expression to the Holy One, Blessed be He, that is only mentioned in connection with Haman. And furthermore, if you say that He will remove the heavens and the earth, how can you immediately say afterward, "and from Zion He shall reign"? After all, Zion is part of the earth, and if He removes it, where will He reign?
The Answer of the Sages of the Generation: The Rhyme Compelled Him
From the continuation, we see that Ibn Ezra discussed this matter with other scholars, and he occasionally cites their replies. One of the scholars of that generation replied: The rhyme of *yakpil* compelled him to say *pur hephil* ("he cast a lot"). Ibn Ezra retorted: We do not find that the prophets ever engaged in rhyming throughout all their prayers!
This is a subject we have discussed at length in Sefer HaKuzari. There, the King of the Khazars asks the Chaver: Metered and rhymed poetry - this style of poetry, like Arabic poetry with its quantitative meters and rhymes, was highly sought after in their time - yet the poetry of the Jewish people lacks this. Throughout Shir HaShirim, you will not find a rhyme; Tehillim is a song of praise to Hashem, yet it is unrhymed; the Song of the Sea is unrhymed; they did not concern themselves with rhymes anywhere in Tanach. It was under the influence of Arabic poetry that Ibn Gabirol, Ibn Ezra, and other giants of those generations began writing rhymed poetry, but prior to that, we find no such thing.
The answer given there is magnificent, and Ibn Ezra says something similar here: Whenever you require a rhyme, you compromise on the precision of the Holy Tongue. To illustrate: suppose there was a celebration, and I write, "They read the Megillah with great *gilah*" - a very pleasant rhyme, but in truth it was not *gilah* (exultation) but *simchah* (joy), and there is a distinct difference between *gilah* and *simchah*, as we have explained numerous times in our study of the Malbim. What happened here? I was forced to use a word that does not precisely convey the concept, replacing the exact word simply to preserve the rhyme. Thus, the pleasing aesthetic of hearing the rhyme took precedence over the content. A prophet, however, always prioritizes content over the pleasantness of rhyme; rhyme may be delightful and pleasing, but it requires compromising on content, since one must bend the meaning to fit the words.
The Ibn Ezra further adds: he should have composed a different rhyme. Why did he write in his rhyme, "He rode on an elephant (pil), and will bring him down (yapil) to the earth"? Even if he saw in a dream that he must rhyme with "elephant" (pil) and needed to interpret his dream while awake, he could have said: "Lochetz ya'apil, lehitnase yapil, veramei lev yashpil, umitzion yimloch" (An oppressor will presume to ascend, seeking to exalt himself He will cast him down, the haughty of heart He will abase, and from Zion He will reign). See, in a single moment I have given you a far superior rhyme: "An oppressor will presume to ascend" - the enemy who oppresses Israel exalted himself and presumed to ascend; "seeking to exalt himself He will cast him down" - he wished to exalt himself, and in the end Hashem will cast him down; "the haughty of heart He will abase" - Hashem abased the arrogant of heart, that Haman who was filled with pride; "and from Zion He will reign." Why, then, insert problematic expressions into the rhyme when one could use rhymes that present no difficulty at all?
The Second Point: Talmudic Language and Foreign Tongues
The second challenge he raises is that his liturgical poems are intermingled with Talmudic language. It is well known that there are several languages in the Talmud that are not Lashon HaKodesh (the Holy Tongue), and our Sages said that the language of Scripture is distinct from the language of the Talmud. Who brought us into this misfortune of praying in foreign tongues? Why do we need foreign languages, and what is lacking in the Holy Tongue? Look at Nechemiah, who rebuked those who spoke the language of Ashdod - half the people spoke Ashdodite and half Ammonite, and he rebuked them. You have the Holy Tongue, especially during prayer! Why should we not learn from the established liturgy, which is composed entirely of pure and elegant Hebrew - "Hashem, open my lips," "Blessed are You, Hashem, our G-d and G-d of our fathers" - all of it purely in the Holy Tongue; why should we pray in the tongues of Media, Persia, Edom, and Ishmael?
The Third Point: Grammatical Errors
The third point is that even words written in the Holy Tongue contain major errors. These payetanim exercised immense poetic license with the Hebrew language, conjugating words as they pleased even when such words do not exist in the Holy Tongue. For example: "Ansichah malki lefanav" - where do you find such an expression? Scripture states, "Yet I have set (nasachti) My king," and nasachti is from the binyan kal (simple verb conjugation). The binyan kal is light on the organs of speech, whereas the binyan kaved (intensive conjugation) is heavier on pronunciation: rotze'ach in the light form, meratze'ach in the heavy form. Whenever a verb is in an intensive form, it signifies that the action was carried out with greater force and vigor, as the Malbim explains and as we have noted previously. If so, here one should have used nasachti malki in the binyan kal, on the pattern of nafalti, nadarti; and in the future tense - asoch, ansoch, like epol, ador, endor. In the heavy form, one would say hipil-apil, hisich-asich, or ansich with a nun. But ansichah - we find no such word. If you examine what you are saying, "ansichah malki" would mean pouring the king out as a libation - taking him and offering him as a libation upon the Altar, as in "Nor will I pour out their libations of blood" (bal asich niskeihem midam). Is that what you mean? Some commentators explain "nasachti malki" as "I have anointed My king," and if that interpretation is correct, it turns out he erred by saying ansichah instead of nasachti. Why get entangled in such words? Say "I will exalt my King," "I will praise my King," "I will give thanks," "I will sanctify" - why search for an artificial word merely to show cleverness to the listeners?
We must know the grammar of the Holy Tongue well so as not to err, like those who recite Birkat HaMazon and say "Avinu ro'enu zanenu" - unaware that zanenu stems from the root of zenut (promiscuity), just as onenu derives from ma'aneh; one must say "zonenu" (sustain us). Thus, one must vocalize the words with precision, otherwise the blessing becomes distorted. A very common example: during Selichot, people say "anenu" - which is the exact opposite of the plea, for "anênu" means "answer us," whereas "anenu" means "afflict us." Some go even further and say "aneh me'anenu" - and what are they actually saying? That those who afflict us - answer them and accept their prayer! Rather, one must say "aneh me'aneinu," with a dagesh in the nun, meaning: afflict those who torment us. Thus, through a minor variation, one corrupts the meaning entirely.
Masculine and Feminine: "Shoshan Emek Ayumah"
The Ibn Ezra further remarks that in the hands of Rabbi Eliezer, may he rest in Eden, the Holy Tongue is like a breached city without a wall - his usage of it is so elastic and flexible that he turns masculine words into feminine ones, and vice versa. One recurring flaw is applying masculine grammar to feminine subjects, or the reverse. For example, the stanza:
שושן עמק איומה, שבת שבתון לקיימה, שורש וענף סיימה, שבים יחד לציימה. - Rose of the valley, awesome one; a Sabbath of solemn rest to uphold; root and branch she concluded; returnees join together to fast on it.
"Letzaymah" means to fast, and this is yet another example of invented words: Hebrew has no such expression as "letzaymah"; there is "latzum" (to fast), there is "atzumah" (I will fast), but "letzaymah" is an invented conjugation not accepted in the Hebrew language. And regarding masculine and feminine, he asks: shoshanah is feminine, and likewise in the construct state, "shoshanat ha'amakim" (rose of the valleys) is feminine; but when you say "shoshan," without a hei or a tav, it is masculine and takes masculine agreement, just as tzedakah is feminine and tzedek is masculine. If so, how can one say "shoshan emek ayumah" (using the feminine adjective ayumah)? He should have said "shoshan emek ayom," which would be far more appropriate. And why deviate from the biblical verse rather than saying "shoshanat emek ayumah," which would at least make sense grammatically, since shoshanah is feminine? Moreover, how can one describe a rose as "awesome" or "fearsome" (ayumah)? The adjectives appropriate for a rose are plucked, fresh, or withered - but not an intimidated or terrifying rose! What kind of expression is that?
"Poor and Destitute Rhymes Begging at the Doors"
One of the scholars of that generation - who debated with him on this matter - suggested that the poet was forced to say "ayumah" so that the rhyme would be rich, since he says: "shoshan emek ayumah, shabbat Shabbaton lekaymah, shoresh ve'anaf siyymah"; and what would you propose instead, "ayom"? "Shoshan emek ayom" does not rhyme with "lekaymah," which is why he wrote "ayumah."
The Ibn Ezra replied to him: If this is considered a "rich rhyme," then in their piyyut there are rhymes that are impoverished beggars going from door to door. A sharp expression! For he rhymed har ("mountain") with nivchar ("chosen") - is this really a rhyme? One is with a hei and the other is with a chet.
Incidentally, Ibn Ezra himself has a famous poetic rule: "Do not rhyme with an ox and a donkey together; you shall surely send the ox (shor) to the plain (mishor), and the donkey (chamor) to the mountain of myrrh (har hamor)." A very clever phrasing. That is to say, when making a rhyme, endeavor that the final syllables or words be identical. Shor and mor are not the same word - one is with a shin and the other with a mem; but shor and mishor both end in shor, and that is a fine rhyme; likewise, chamor with har hamor, both ending in mor.
And here it is even worse, for he rhymed har with nivchar. And if you say they are both guttural letters - if so, combine alef and ayin as well, since they are guttural letters, and combine bet with vav, since both are labial letters (from the BUMAF group); and indeed he does so, rhyming Levi with navi - but this is no rhyme, and according to the grammar of Lashon HaKodesh they are not even the same letters, one being a bet and the other a vav! And if you rhyme according to the phonetic origins of the mouth, combine mem with pei as well, and you will end up with only five types of rhymes in the entire world. And if you say he joined them because they look similar in writing, a hei and a chet - then why not join reish with dalet, which look alike, and bet with kaf, which look alike? Could such a thing ever be said?
Furthermore, he connects mishpatim with pitim, because tet and tav share a phonetic origin. True, we find grammatical shifts like nitztadak, hitzhtayarnu, hitztayaru - but nonetheless, one is with a tet and the other with a tav. Likewise, he rhymed yom with pidyon and elyon, yet mem and nun do not rhyme: yom ends with a mem and pidyon with a nun. Moreover, the mem of yom is part of the root, whereas the nun of elyon and pidyon is not root-derived - which is yet another grammatical decline. And what is the purpose of rhyme, if not to be pleasing to the ear and make one feel that the end of one matches the end of the other?
Furthermore, he rhymed osher ("wealth") with asser te'asser ("you shall surely tithe"), and this too is incorrect - unless the person praying was an Ephraimite! This is poetic wit, based on what is written of the members of the tribe of Ephraim, who when told, "Say shibolet," would say "sibolet" - demonstrating that even in ancient times there were those who confused these letters. One is pronounced with a shin and the other with a sin or samech; how could you make a rhyme of them? Only an Ephraimite could do so!
"One Does Not Refute a Lion After His Death"
Some answered Ibn Ezra: One does not refute a lion after his death. Do not raise objections - this was undoubtedly a great man, and he is no longer here. There is no greatness in challenging someone when he cannot reply; had he been here, he would certainly have answered you.
To this he replied: "The spirit of God made us all" - it is the spirit of the Blessed One that made all of us, and all people stem from His spirit; "and the ancients were formed from clay like us" - the early generations were also formed from clay, they were human beings and not angels; "and the ear tests words" - when you wish to evaluate whether someone wrote correctly, the ear is the test to determine if the words are properly composed.
A wonderful example of this: we all know that Daniel was a prophet and master over all the necromancers and sages of Babylon; none was as wise as Daniel. Nevertheless, Chazal did not refrain from stating that Daniel erred in his calculation - in the calculation of the years he made there. And Ibn Ezra remarks: "And arithmetic is a simple matter." Ibn Ezra himself authored a book on mathematics, which is why he tells us that calculation is a simple thing.
Incidentally, it is told of Ibn Ezra that he was a mathematical wonder, and many stories are related about him. To relate a brief story: there were several passengers on a ship who had to be cast into the sea, and they needed to decide whom to throw overboard. Ibn Ezra told them that he would arrange them. He positioned them in a circle and instructed that they count from one to nine, and every ninth person would be thrown overboard. Within seconds, he positioned the Jews in such a manner - this one standing here, that one standing there - that ultimately every ninth person selected was a gentile, and only the Jews remained. He was a mathematical genius, and a master of all the disciplines of his era, brilliant in his reasoning.
In summary:
The verse, "Do not be rash with your mouth," teaches three things at once: that a person should not speak improperly about his Creator in times of trouble, like Iyov who did not sin with his lips - nor in his heart; that one must always remember he stands before the King, and precisely because he cannot see Him one must exercise greater care, for "God is in heaven and you are upon earth" - absolute supremacy; and that one must never speak insolently toward Heaven, as in the incident of Levi who brought down rain and became lame. From here we expanded to the words of Ibn Ezra, that prayer must be uttered calmly, in clear and lucid language, concise and precise, and that one should not utter words whose meaning he does not know - and therefore he criticized piyyutim that are riddles and parables, mixed with foreign languages, grammatically corrupt, and poorly rhymed. "Therefore, let your words be few" - speech that is brief, purposeful, and precise is the speech appropriate for standing before the Omnipresent.