I was surprised at the three consecutive zakefs. It certainly seems like (to the non-expert like me) that the v'hayu shouldn't have a mafsik, or, such a high level mafsik.
Can anyone give more insight into the meaning of that mafsik, and how it changes the meaning of the pasuk if it had a meshoresh on it?
Thanks -- shavua tov,
-- Sholom
A *zakeif* (rather than a lower-level *mafsiq
<https://sites.google.com/site/torahreading/mafsiqim>\*\) on the 2nd word
establishes "Qach mei'itam" as a significant phrase in the first half of
the *pasuq*, and if the Torah wanted to de-emphasize the remainder of the
words through the *tipcha*, I would agree that *m'shar'sim* would seem more
appropriate. That two more *mafsiqim* on the same level as the *mafsiq* on
"mei'itam" grace the two words prior to the *tipcha* word-unit implies to
me that those words (i.e. the wagons and their utilization) are to be
emphasized as significant within the phrase "v'hayu la'avod es-avodas...."
One can speculate on why the two words are to be emphasized; David
haMelech certainly found out the significance of _not_ using a wagon for
the Aron....
All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA