(ל"ב:י"ח)
וַיּאמֶר אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה וְאֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה קוֹל עַנּוֹת אָנכִי שׁמֵעַ
וַיּאמֶר אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה וְאֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה קוֹל עַנּוֹת אָנכִי שׁמֵעַ
The pronunciation of the דגש חזק is an art which has fallen largely out of practice. Even amongst the best of בעלי קריאה I have heard few who actually still do. More often the not, the דגש does not change the meaning of the word in and of itself. However, one of my Rebbeim in ישיבת אור ירושלים once pointed out to me that in the above פסוק, the דגש diffrentiates between two words in the very same pasuk!
משה רבינו is answering יהושע that he does not hear the sound of the (victorious) outcry of the mighty, nor the (defeated) outcry of the weak. In those first two instances, the word ענות is from the verb לענות, to answer or to exclaim. Rather, says משה רבינו, it is the call of blasphemy, as רש"י explains, which afflict the souls of those who hear them. Here, the word ענות is from the word ענוי, affliction. Clearly, there are two different words in this pasuk and the only to diffrentiate between the two is with the pronunciation of the דגש.
13 comments:
I would assume that for someone who never pronounces a dagesh chazak, leaving it out would not be a correctable mistake even in this case where it changes the meaning. This should be similar to the phenomenon of switching ayins and alephs which is extemely common and therefore not corretable even where the meaning is changed. One might argue that the same applies even to a "mapik heh".
I agree with Binny. In this case I try to emphasize the patach in the last "anos" and not to emphasize the chataf patach in the first two.
I don't really agree that it is two different verbs; rather, the first two instances are cases of s'michut, in which the patach is truncated to a hataf, while the third is not.
It is clear according to רש"י and אונקלוס that they are two different words.
Based on your logic, the first two instances of the word are also different verbs! You're ignoring the generally non-literalist bent of Onkelos; and Rashi is simply a translation of Onkelos here.
The Rambam writes in Hilkhot Tefillah that someone who can not pronounce an aleph and ayin correctly can not be a shliach tzibbur.
I don't really agree that it is two different verbs; rather, the first two instances are cases of s'michut
הרעיון של "סמיכות" נשמע מעניין אבל אינו יכול להיות נכון כאן
אין שום אפשרות שסמיכות תהפוך פתח לחטף-פתח ותמחק דגש
גם בלאו הכי
הלא דניאל יסכים שעונה כמו "העונה בעת צרה" אינו דומה כלל ל"וכאשר יענו אותו" הרי שעל כרחך יש כאן שני פעלים אחד בבנין קל וחד בבנין פיעל. ושניהם מאותו שורש
There are many other places where a dagesh chazak changes the meaning of an otherwise identical word. At least here one can (perhaps) emphasize the patach under the last ayin to differentiate between the two words (as Doniel points out)...See VaYikra 6:14 and 7:30 where the word "תביאנה" is pronounced identically but clearly has two different meanings whether or not one stresses the dagesh in the nun.
Unless your ba'al kri'ah is very experienced, you will undoubtedly hear: "vesalahta la'avonenu ul'chattoseinu" rather than "ul'chattaseinu"
How ironic.
Our ba'al kri'ah is experienced. But I did hear ul'chattoseinu. And I caught it and corrected it.
I differentiate by being careful to proounce the first two with a chataf patach and the last one with a patach.
See hakdama to tikkun ish matzliach re ein kol anos
Clearly, the dagesh is a fine point of grammar.
Post a Comment