| 6. Linguistic Exegesis The verse begins with a fronted prepositional frame, bekhol {בְּכֹל | bə-ḵōl} ‘in all/wherever’, which sets a comprehensive scope. The relative asher-hithalakti {אֲשֶֽׁר־הִתְהַלַּכְתִּי֮ | ʾăšer-hit·hal·lak·tî} ‘where I walked about’ specifies the sphere of divine presence, and bekhol-yisrael {בְּכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ | bə-ḵāl-yiśrāʾēl} intensifies it as “throughout Israel.” The interrogative prefix on hadavar {הֲדָבָ֣ר | hă-dāḇār} signals that what follows is a rhetorical question, expecting the answer “No.” The verb dibbarti {דִּבַּ֗רְתִּי | dibbar·tî} ‘I spoke’ takes an unusual object construction with et-ahad {אֶת־אַחַד֙ | ʾeṯ-ʾaḥaḏ} ‘(to) one/anyone’, using the direct-object marker ʾeṯ in a partitive sense to deny that even a single official was addressed with such a demand. The construct chain shoptei yisrael {שֹׁפְטֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל | šōp̄ṭê yiśrāʾēl} identifies the leaders, and the relative clause asher tsiviti {אֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוִּ֛יתִי | ʾăšer ṣiwwî·tî} grounds their authority in divine commission. The infinitive lirʿot {לִרְע֥וֹת | lirʿōṯ} ‘to shepherd’ provides the purpose/content of that commission (governing portrayed as pastoral care). Lemor {לֵאמֹ֑ר | lēʾmōr} introduces the quoted challenge, and the final clause lammah lo-venitem li bet arazim {לָ֛מָּה לֹא־בְנִיתֶ֥ם לִ֖י בֵּ֥ית אֲרָזִֽים | lām·māh lō-ḇənîṯem lî bêṯ ʾărāzîm} frames the issue as accountability: leadership was never instructed to construct a prestigious cedar-built temple, so the building impulse must be evaluated in light of divine initiative rather than human expectation. |