Berachot 15a-b: Careful pronunciation of the Shema

Based on our Mishna and gemara, if we read Shema in a non-careful manner, we still have fulfilled our Mitzvah:

The Mishna:

MISHNAH. IF ONE RECITES THE SHEMA' WITHOUT HEARING WHAT HE SAYS, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. R. JOSE SAYS: HE HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE RECITES IT WITHOUT PRONOUNCING THE LETTERS CORRECTLY, R. JOSE SAYS THAT HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION, R. JUDAH SAYS THAT HE HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION.

and the gemara:

IF ONE RECITED WITHOUT PRONOUNCING THE LETTERS DISTINCTLY. R. Tabi said in the name of R. Josiah: The halachah in both cases follows the more lenient authority.⁸

And so do we see Rav say in the parallel Yerushalmi (Yerushalmi Berachot 16a):

רב אמר הלכה כדברי שניהן להקל

Even so, the Yerushalmi there (next amud) speaks about making sure to say tizkeru with a zayin rather than tiskeru with a sin.

ר' לוי ר' אבדיא דחיפה בשם ר' לוי בר סיסי צריך להתיז למען תזכרו.

ר' יונה בשם רב חסדא צריך להתיז כי לעולם חסדו 

According to meforshim there, the fear about tizkeru is the implication of tiskeru. Perhaps then, that one should not be doing the mitzvos for the sake of their reward.

When I said over this idea in a shiur (in terms of harei ani nazik), one elderly woman harked from a country where they did not make such a distinction. They didn't voice their zayin sibilants, to distinguish them from non-voiced samech sibilants. Thus, she would pronounce mezuzah as messussah.

Related to this idea, the Yerushalmi there continues:

תני אין מעבירין לפני התיבה לא חיפנין ולא בישנין ולא טיבעונין מפני שהן עושין היהין חיתין ועיינין אאין אם היה לשונו ערוך מותר:

Certainly they fulfill the mitzvah of kriat Shema.

Further in the gemara, on Berachot 15b:

תני רב עובדיה קמיה דרבא ולמדתם שיהא למודך תם שיתן ריוח בין הדבקים עני רבא בתריה כגון על לבבך על לבבכם בכל לבבך בכל לבבכם עשב בשדך ואבדתם מהרה הכנף פתיל אתכם מארץ א"ר חמא ברבי חנינא כל הקורא ק"ש ומדקדק באותיותיה מצננין לו גיהנם שנאמר (תהלים סח, טו) בפרש שדי מלכים בה תשלג בצלמון אל תקרי בפרש אלא בפרש אל תקרי בצלמון אלא בצלמות:

Or, in English:

R. Obadiah recited in the presence of Raba: 'And ye shall teach them':²¹  as much as to say thy teaching must be faultless²²  by making a pause 'between the joints'.²³  For instance, said Raba, supplementing his words 'Al lebabeka [upon thy heart], 'al lebabekem [upon your heart], Bekol lebabeka [with all thy heart], bekol lebabekem [with all your heart], 'eseb be-sadeka [grass in thy field], wa-'abaddetem meherah [and ye shall perish speedily], ha-kanaf pesil [the corner a thread], etthkem me-erez [you from the land]. R. Hama b. Hanina said: If one in reciting the Shema'pronounces the letters distinctly, hell is cooled for him, as it says, When the Almighty scattereth kings therein, it snoweth in Zalmon.²⁴  Read not be-fares [when he scattereth] but befaresh [when one pronounces distinctly], and read not be-zalmon [in Zalmon] but be-zalmaweth [in the shadow of death].

Way back during last daf Yomi cycle, I wrote the following:

David G. on Adafaday asks about Rava's examples of not pronouncing Shema correctly by not putting a pause together between certain words. While the lameds of al-levavecha make sense, he has problems with the plosive/fricative pairs v/p (in eisev besadcha) and p/f (in hakanaf petil), not seeing how they can be confused or interchangable such that it is not pronouncing it correctly. He gives some suggestions, such as that they may not have made a distinction back then.

First off, we do have slightly different pronunciation of some letters than they had back then. He does not see the way of mixing up p/f, but it is realli not p/f but rather p/phi. That is, for example, we have peh = the voiceless biliabial plosive vs. feh, the voiceless labiodental fricative, such that it is not just a plosive vs. fricative (b vs. v, k vs. ch) difference, but the place of articulation is also different (bilabial vs. labiodental). However, the reconstructed Mishnaic pronunciation of feh is as phi, the voiceless bilabial fricative, such that it is just a plosive/fricative distinction. (Bilabial means with both lips, while labio-dental means with lower lip and upper teach or vice versa.) You can click on the links above, which take you to Wikipedia, where you can actually hear samples of all these sounds. The same situation with b/v which the reconstructed Mishnaic pronunciation was b/beta, with beta being the voiced bilabial (rather than labiodental v) fricative. See here.

I would suggest that the plosive is more strongly needed when you do not lead into it, which is why you get plosive (=dagesh kal) in the beginning of words and syllables in Hebrew, and if you rather lead into it with the fricative equivalent, the plosive quality will be either weakened or dispensed with. This would perhaps be a similar situation to an affricate, in which the plosive element is not finished because it leads into the fricative equivalent.

{Update: Or say: the fricative usually continues on for a short time and doesn't end in a stop of air (plosive). If you say pronounce the fricative quickly, followed by the plosive with no pause or shva na in between, the combination of the two letters sounds much like the plosive.}

I would also add that according to the Rif's version of the gemara, Rava gave addition examples of switchoff - a vav example with o/u: אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם, and a vav example with u/v: לְמַעַן .תִּזְכְּרוּ, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם See here on my Rif blog for these examples.