(c) Apr 18 2001 RashiYomi Inc. MY COLLECTED & INDEXED MAIL JEWISH POSTINGS-Ver #1
Individual Postings 1st appeared(& were copied in html form) on the Email List Mail Jewish

From: rhendel@king.mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:36:15 -0400
Subject: A Prayer Error with Rabbinical Controversy in the Shema

Believe it or not I just found a davening error which many people
perform every day and yet according to one Posayk it is a blatant error.

I refer to the words in Keriath Shemah..."BECAL LEVAVCHAH...".

According to the Rambam (and other Poskim) the lamed at the END of becal
should be separated from the lamed at the BEGINNING of LEVAVCHAH. This
sounds simple enough and many people do this.  Yet according to the
Minchat Shai the Rambam did not mean what we think he meant.

To explain his position we list three possible pronunciations
     1) BECAL   LEVAVCHAH
     2) BECALEVAVCAH
     3) BECALLLLLEVAVCAH
To clarify: in 1) we separate the two words. In 2) we slur the two
words one into the other. In 3) we slur the two words one into the
other BUT prolong the "L or LAMD" sound to equal the length of time
required to say two letters (thus even though we slur it without a
break we do use the time required for two).

Let us now get down to halachah.  The Rambam seems to be saying  that
1) is proper and 2) or 3) are improper.  The MINCATH SHAY says that
the Rambam only meant to declare 2) improper (sluring); but 3) (slurring
with double time for the l) is the proper way of saying it.

The MINCHAT SHAY further objects and claims that it is clear that 1)
(separation of words) is IMPROPER. The reason for this is that the two
words are connected with a MAKKAF or hyphen and according to the Minchat
Shay that requires that the words be slurred into each other. (In
passing I note that there is some support for this view: E.g. The
frequently recurring Posook VAYEDABER HASHEM EL MOSHE LAYMOR should
really be read ...MOSEHLAYMOR (because the L of LAYMOR has a Dagesh
which REQUIRES one to slur (the so called DAGESH CHAZAK).

In closing I note that this is more than "another mail jewish davening
error" This is a *real* halachic problem.  I raise the issue: What do we
do in this case? Do we simply follow the shulchan aruch which *seems* to
be saying the 1) is proper.  But the MInchath Shai has a right to
interpret the shulchan aruch and tell us that it is only 2) that is
improper and in fact 1) is also improper and use such precedents as the
Dagesh Chazak.

  I am curious about both practice AND Methodlogy. Anyone out there know
or has heard of something authorative.  For what it is worth my own
practice is as follows: I follow the Michath Shai in Keriath Shemah.
When I lain however I frequently follow the literal method (of
separating words) since it might cause too much confusion to the Tzibbur
if I slurred words.

Ideas are welcome.

Russell Jay Hendel, Ph.d. ASA rhendel @ mcs . drexel . edu