תניא סומכוס אומר כל המאריך באחד מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו אמר רב אחא בר יעקב ובדלי"ת אמר רב אשי ובלבד שלא יחטוף בחי"ת ר' ירמיה הוה יתיב קמיה דר' [חייא בר אבא] חזייה דהוה מאריך טובא א"ל כיון דאמליכתיה למעלה ולמטה ולארבע רוחות השמים תו לא צריכת:
Or, in English:
It has been taught: Symmachus says: Whoever prolongs the word ehad [one]. has his days and years prolonged. R. Aha b. Jacob said: [He must dwell] on the daleth.12 R. Ashi said: Provided he does not slur over the heth.13 R. Jeremiah was once sitting before R. Hiyya b. Abba, and the latter saw that he was prolonging [the word ehad] very much. He said to him: Once you have declared Him king14 over [all that is] above and below and over the four quarters of the 'heaven, no more is required.
Perhaps daled then signifies the daled ruchos haolam. A word on how one can extend the daled. In Mishnaic and Talmudic times, there was a pronounced distinction between daled with a dagesh kal (a dot inside) and without a dagesh kal, parallel to tav vs. sav or bet vs. vet. With a dagesh, it is a plosive, and is pronounced just as we pronounce a daled. Without a dagesh, it is a fricative, and is pronounced like the 'th' in the word 'either'.
It is thus possible to extend the daled. Nowadays, in order to fulfill this Talmudic instruction, we could pronounce our daleds in Shema (or in that first pasuk) as fricatives. Otherwise, we can simply assert that it is no longer possible to fulfill this Talmudic instruction, and not attempt it.
I've seen people, who do not know about the fricative dh, who try to extend the plosive daled. This is not really possible, and they and up just saying a harsh DI sound at the end. Look in the Magen Avraham about an instruction lehadgish the daled, which he clarifies does not mean to make it into a dagesh chazak (strong dagesh, which geminates, or doubles, the pronunciation of the letter), but to distinguish it clearly from a resh.
I've seen some people extend the kamatz before the daled. That also is not entirely optimal, since Rashi writes:
ובדל"ת - ולא בחי"ת דכל כמה דאמר אח בלא דל"ת לא משתמע מידי
And thus, before you actually reach the daled, you are not really extending the echad.
It is unclear what is meant by:
ובלבד שלא יחטוף בחי"ת
in the gemara. Does this mean the letter, or does this mean the vowel under the letter? Rashi writes:
ובלבד שלא יחטוף בחי"ת - בשביל אריכות הדל"ת לא ימהר בקריאתה שלא יקראנה בחטף בלא פתח ואין זה כלום:
In other words, if you change the kamatz under the chet into a sheva -- by which I think he might even mean a sheva nach. (Sometimes, a patach was written next to the sheva to show it was pronounced, na, rather than being specifically a chataf patach.)
In Shulchan Aruch, they also speak of extended the letter chet itself somewhat, and there is a dispute whether this is something one should do. I wonder if this machlokes somehow is related to different pronunciations of chet in different geographical regions. In places where chet has merged with the fricative chaf, it is possible to extend it. (And perhaps one can even them reinterpret the gemara's ובלבד שלא יחטוף בחי"ת as such an instruction.) Meanwhile, in places where chet retained its status as a guttural, which is hard to pronounce and extend, they would not have reinterpreted the gemara in this manner.
"Nowadays, in order to fulfill this Talmudic instruction, we could pronounce our daleds in Shema (or in that first pasuk) as fricatives."
ReplyDeleteIs this really a reasonable option? I don't know what is acceptable practice, but I generally dislike it when people stray from what is their cultural minhag with regards to pronunciation. If you are of Hungarian descent, or German, or Iraqi, or Yemenite, pronounce Hebrew accordingly. And you're going to be inconsistent for what? For a cryptic statement in the gemara about מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו? Which brings me to my second point...
Do you know of any explanations as to what the gemara means by that? Surely the gemara is not promising long life to any nudnik who extends his "echad"s.
You're supposed to use the extra time you have while extending the dalet to acknowledge Hashem's Kingship. Presumably, that's the part that leads to the extended life.
Deleteexcellent point. i agree with you, even as i disagree with you and can see the opposite side.
ReplyDeletein terms of your second point, if you look at the parallel Yerushalmi (linked above), it does not start with Sumchos:
תני צריך להאריך באחד. רב נחמן בר' יעקב אמר ובלבד בד'. סומכוס בר יוסף אומר כל המאריך באחד מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו בטובה. ר' ירמיה הוה מאריך סגין א"ל ר' זעירא לית את צריך כל הכין אלא כדי שתמליכהו בשמים ובארץ ובד' רוחות העולם.
So the start is a brayta which instructs us to say it, and Sumchos gives this positive reward to one who fulfills it.
We see that the length one should extend is כדי שתמליכהו בשמים ובארץ ובד' רוחות העולם, which is, after all, the purpose of Shema -- kabbalas ol malchus shamayim. And by extending the word Echad, as one covers one's eyes and meditates on this idea (like Rabbi Yehuda haNasi), one can actually fulfill the primary function of this mitzvah deoraysa.
For those who first engage in grappling with the gemara and figure out a way in which to fulfill these Talmudic instructions, there is an added benefit. It is a way of making one's Jewish practice more alive, as one figures out the way to implement all these instructions (as encoded all the way through halachic literature, even through Shulchan Aruch and on).
kol tuv,
josh
from facebook:
ReplyDelete"Rav Adler told me that Rav Moshe Feinstein זצ''ל told him, when he approached about elongating the Dalet, that we don't really know how to pronounce it, so, unless you can find someone who still has the masoret of how to do that properly, better to stick to what you learned. Interesting for someone like me who has learned hebrew pronunciation from so many different sources."
i know people who have the masoret, which accords with how Semitic phonologists say Chazal pronounced it...
Thanks for the reply.
ReplyDelete(1) I can get the idea of the contemplation being the virtue here, with the extension of the 'dalet' being the symbolically significant choice for where to buy time. Is that sort of what you're trying to say?
(2) Would you follow the people with the legitimate mesora and the Semitic phonologists in general? On the one hand, I see the appeal of knowing you are pronouncing the words (in a sense)the way "they should be pronounced" and the way they were pronounced in ancient times. On the other hand, I don't know what kind of community you live in, but if I did that in my shul, I would be "that odd guy in the corner". Barely anything I say would be comparable to what anyone else was saying. That is being strange.
And if you just use the legitimate mesora of the [dalet rafah = "zh"] sound for shema, and use the "normal" pronunciation for everything else, you are sacrificing your consistency. It's almost in the spirit of "tartei d'sasri"; within one morning, you're contradicting yourself with regards to what a dalet sounds like. That's also strange.
In my opinion, best option: Understand the motivation of Sumchus, such as in the explanation in (1), and strive for the fulfillment of that ideal (e.g. contemplation of God's sovereignty) and forget about the whole dalet issue altogether. You're still yotzei.
There's no mesora of a dalet without a dagesh being pronounced anything like "zh". It's pronounced like the soft "th" in "this".
DeleteIt's also good to be makpid on pronouncing the ayin in "l'ahavah et Hashem Elokecha u-l'ovdo", so as not to sound all blaspheme-y.
Yes, of course. I meant "dh", not "zh". I get those two sounds mixed up sometimes.
Deletebli neder, an answer later. good questions, but i have to go to bed...
ReplyDeletein terms of (1), sort of. but note that it is specifically on the word Echad, where we are trying to focus on God's unity.
ReplyDeletein terms of understanding and applying motivations, certainly, especially where we will not otherwise be performing the act. but consider that i had a non-religious co-worker who made the same basic argument about mitzvos deoraysa. if you understand the motivation behind tefillin, then why not have that motivation and ignore the actual ritual act.
in terms of (2), yes, quite probably. (though admittedly not consistently. i don't regularly extend the daled.) consider that i followed rav herschel schachter's nusach for my kesuba, which is basically an adoption of dr. richard steiner's correction of the standard nusach, on the basis of real knowledge of Aramaic grammar. and consider that i wear murex trunculus techeiles, just as rav schachter wears it, after learning through the sugyos and weighing the arguments, finally concluding that this is in all likelihood indeed the techeiles of Chazal.
in terms of 'odd guy in the corner', you are right, and you need to consider the social aspects of your actions. don't spoil your daughter's shidduch! ;) certainly i wouldn't extend the daled in such fashion (or pronounce my ayins correctly) for a shul in which people are not expecting it. on the other hand, most people are closed-minded idiots who think that they know. though very meek by nature, i've worked on improving the middah of azus panim, which does have its place.
aside from all this, practically, without this practical action of extending of daled after having learned through the sugya, i would say that your or my chances of having this particular kavvana in Shema ranges from 0% to 1%. performing this action, after having learned through the sugya, serves as a reminder to have this kavvana and serves as a vehicle of transforming your learning from lilmod ulelamed into lishmor velaasos. then, your chance of having this particular kavvanah ranges from 50%-100%.
kol tuv,
josh