Yabia Omer, the words ahavta, dibarta, akhalta and the like, in those mishkalim, are mill’eil when used in past tense. The ones I quoted, preceded by a vav ham’hapekhes (or “hahippukh,” if you prefer), as in v’ahavTA (meseg/g’ayya – secondary accent on the aleph’s open syllable) or v’dibbarTA bam in K’rias Sh’ma, uveirakhTA in bentching, and v’akhalTA in both, are most certainly mill’ra, accented on the final, ultimate syllable, and thus in future tense, and should, at least l’khatt’chila be pronounced as such.. It is brought down that the kavvana should not be spoiled by trying to be m’dakdek, but if talmidim learn it properly the first time, it shouldn’t impact the kavvana. The change in meaning is certainly enough to require going back in k’rias HaTorah, even though that is normally d’Rabbanan. Of course, if done, it must be done beforehand, or in a way that does not embarrass anyone, so that one is not oveir on a d’Oraisa in the process of being machmir on a d’Rabbanan, to paraphrase something that has been said b’shem R Soloveitchik zt”l. The accent would not change in certain conditions, e.g., in a tzuras hefsek/pausal form, as in the second of V’AkhalTA v’saVAta; uVEIrakhTA… or in a nasog achor situation, to avoid adjacent accented syllables, such as v’aKHALta sham (with a dagesh chazzak in the shin) in Parashas R’ei. Incidentally, Mishnah B’rura clearly holds to go back even between a pashta and a kadma, even though I would estimate that a large percentage of ba-alei k’ria, especially among Ashkenazim in America, are not even aware that they are very different. Unfortunately, neither are many Bar Mitzva teachers, which just perpetuates the problem.
Menu