Friday, February 5, 2010

בעלמא די ברא כרעותיה

As per the comments, the below theory is most probably invalid. But I thought it would be nice to bring up the discussion anyway:

I once had a discussion with a friend about the specific pronunciation of the word כרעותיה in the above exerpt from the beginning of קדיש. Should there be a דגש in the כ"ף or not? He reasoned that with no דגש, the word כרעותיה connects with ברא as it is the ending vowel sound that steals the דגש. This would then group this phrase together to mean "the world which He has created according to His will."

However, if you leave the דגש in the כ"ף that disjoints the word כרעותיה from ברא, essentially forming a complete thought out of all the words that precede it. "His will" would therefore not be defining "the world He created," but rather "יתגדל ויתקדש שמיה רבא." Let His name grow exalted and be sanctified according to his will.

Leaving aside which understanding is correct, I would like to suggest the דגש does not necessarily change the meaning in this manner. I say this based on the טעם העליון and טעם התחתון, the two distinct arrangements of trop for the עשרת הדברות. Commandments 6 to 9 have a varying דגש in the leading תי"ו depending on which reading is used. But surely the meaning of the words has not changed. This would seem to imply that presence of the דגש at the beginning of the word is somewhat arbitrary and does not determine the meaning of the word on its own.


Anonymous said...

The Gr"a is the one who says to put in the dagesh so that it connects to the first phrase of kaddish.
When the dagesh is placed in "lo tirzach" it doesn't change the meaning because there is no alternative.

Anonymous said...

See "Al HaKol" that is recited on Shabbos and Yom Tov as the sefer is taken out. If kaddish mimics this tefillah then it is clear there should be a dagesh.

Ari S. said...

One more thing. The inclusion of a dagesh in the latter half of the 10 commandments when read with taam elyon is significant. It, in fact, does change the meaning of the words. It would mean, "No, murder." This would be a commandment to murder. While this may seem odd. Chazal darshan the pasuk accordingly. The Zohar states that the Torah was saying that sometimes you must kill (rodef), or commit adultery (yibum), or steal (life threatening, although some maintain that Rashi disagrees). Regarding the rest there are no heterim (probably because coveting is a feeling and would never be caused by duress and perhaps regarding false testimony the Zohar holds like the hava aminah in the gemara that it is ussur even when life threatening). I think that taam elyon is not meant to be read as pshat (that's why it is not the "real" trop) but for drush.

Shtikler said...

Are you certain that the דרשה is based on the טעם העליון. Perhaps the דרשה is based on the use of the word לא as opposed to the word אל .

Ari S. said...

If so, why would it only be for the first 3 of that set of commandments that the Zohar darshans? It seems that it is based on the trop which creates a pause; hence, creating a dagesh.

Unknown said...

" It seems that it is based on the trop which creates a pause"

the trop does not create a pause in this case

Adam said...

Yes, Ari S., the Gra does prove the dagesh in Kiruteih from the prayer 'Al HaKol from shabbat morning. However, I think one can bring a stronger proof against the Gra from the kaddish recited at a siyum/burial. For the Gra, the phrase Di Vera is just an "extra" adjective, while the main meaning is fine without it (arguably its fine with just the words Yitgadal shmeih b'alma, kiruteih). So in the siyum kaddish when the adjective phrase is extended poetically, one would expect to still find at the end the word kiruteih; it is not there. Rather, the kaddish goes straight into an elongated form of veyamlich malchuteih. Thus it seems that chirutei is really just a part of the adjective phrase which is elongated in the siyum/burial kaddish and does not get a dagesh.

What do you think of my proof?