I learned that a rule of Dageshim is that gutteral letters (אהחע''ר) reject dageshim.
My question is why do we find 17 reishs (1 Samuel 1:6, 1 Samuel 10:24, 1 Samuel 17:25, 2 Kings 6:32, Jeremiah 39:12, Ezekiel 16:4 [×2], Habakkuk 3:13, Psalms 52:5, Proverbs 3:8, Proverbs 11:21, Proverbs 14:10, Proverbs 15:1, Job 39:9, Song of Songs 5:2, Ezra 9:6, 2 Chronicles 26:10) that have dageshim?
Reish is originally on of the בג"ד כפ"ת words (see Sefer Hayetzira). A dagesh kal is a phonetic anomaly in where it is more comfortable to pronounce the letter as raphe (not hard), as apposed to mudgash kal (lightly stengthened).
Our modern day "dh", "th", "gh", "ph" etc. stem from this as proven in R' Eliyahu Bachur's book that is translated to latin where the equvalints of the scripted beged kefet is combinations of usuaul letters with an h (with the exception of b, as the pronounciation of Bet rafe or dagush seems to be indistinguishable in latin).
This is caused by an unclosed vowel in a word moving on to the beged kefet letter. But when starting a vowel with a beged kefet letter it will be mudgash. The same priciple can be demonstrated with 'L', where in the beginning of the vowel it will sound hard, and in the middle of a vowel it will be softened.
The abovementioned priciples apply to Riesh (but was forgotten by most throughout the generations) where at the beginning of vowel it will be rolled twice, in the middle-once. This is backed by the hebrew encyclopedia, and by a Yeminite who knows dikduk backwards.
Answer 1. There is a video channel on YouTube called Machon Shilo. In their playlist, there are 15 videos about Hebrew pronunciation. There in “The proper pronunciation of the Hebrew Alphabet: Beginning with consonants (Qôph through Taw) Rabbi David Bar-Hayim explains that Resh is also part of the BGD KPRT letters which have a double pronunciation; when there is a dagesh kal.
Thus, as there is a couple Beth & Veth, so exists a far lesser known couple: Resh & Rresh. The only difference is that Rresh = Resh plus a dagesh Kal; is far less frequent. It is a rarity. Apparently, is a more stressed Resh. The dagesk kal could be necessary to make sure that Resh would be pronounced and not be masked by the neighboring letter. Dagesh Kal makes the letter plosive. Absence of it make it a fricative.
For more information and audio examples, check the above-mentioned video.
Answer 2. For an academic immersion see also “The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew, Volume 1” by Geoffrey Khan published by University of Cambridge at page 223 — at Resh see link: https://archive.org/details/151cad12-4981-4bbe-923f-f65c9c2c6eb0/page/223/mode/1up
Answer 3. My personal take on it: Do not confuse dagesh Kal with dagesh Hazak or Mapik Hei. There will be cases of a He with dagesh… but that has a different function. It is a Mapik Hei. Resh with dagesh might be a scribal tradition.
Answer 3b. Dagesh Hazak is not generally admitted by the (אהחע''ר). But it could be that dagesh Qal is admited. That is my understanding and what I remember. The problem is that I know of a contradiction: Alef with a dagesh; as in Bereshith 43:27 and Waikra 23:17.
Answer 4 from EmLaMikra -Rav Nisan Sharoni: In the book Em laMikra haShalem written by Nisan Sharoni In Chapter 14 of the Ashdod edition are presented the laws of Dagesh Kal and Hazak and their differences. ספר אם למקרא השׁלם על ידי ניסן שׁרוני ׀ אשׁדוֹד ׀ תשׁס״א ׀ עמוד 62)
In the 7 article of the chapter, the Rav says that the letters ״אהחער״ typically do not take a dagesh. ₪ בּאוֹתיוֹת ״אהחער״ ־לֹא יָבֹא דָגֵשׁ, בְּדֶרֶךְ כְּלָל. ₪ מכלול נז
In the footnote 6 — Not to write it in Hebrew — ; it says: Except in a few cases where there is an exception to the rule… dagesh can be seen in Alef and Reish. See Mesorah haGedolah 43:26 and מכלול נז Minchas Shai 43:26.
Thus, as a sum of the above: A) Rresh with dagesh can be a different phoneme from regular Resh when the dagesh inside it is — a dagesh kal (a round dot in Simanim editions).
Thus, Resh has two possible pronunciations.
I. Resh without the (round) dot = IPA [r] = It is commonly called the rolled R, rolling R, or trilled R. [Because the real fricative "r" is a Ghimel without the dot = Rimmel of the Yemenite = as in the French "bonsoir" IPA(key): /bɔ̃.swaʁ/]
II. RResh with a (round) dot = IPA [r] and even more of a plosive; in this case a louder and longer and more abrupt trill.
B) There are exceptions to the ״אהחער״ rule: when we could meet in a handful of cases Resh and Aleph with a dagesh hazzak (Dagesh Hazzak = a square dot in the center of the letter in simanim editions). Which practically means that Resh with a Dagesh Hazzak has an emphatic pronunciation. Resh plus 1/2 of another Resh. Which in fact amounts to an elongation of the letter. Never mind if the letter is a fricative (tongue is in a mid lower position) or a plosive (the tongue is up in front behind the teeth and is more of a trill = kind of plosive).
C) Scribal tradition
Answer 5 Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan has a few pages on the topic in his translation and clarification of Sefer Yetzirah Chapter 4:1 page 159 and 250. see it here: https://archive.org/details/seferyetzirah00arye/page/159/mode/1up?view=theater
As of Feldheim Tanach with the Simanim; all 17 identified sources have a Dagesh Hazak. Thus underlining their refusal to see RResh as a different phoneme, or their understanding that in practice there would not be a difference between Resh with Dagesh Qal or with Dagesh hazak. This is unfortunately inconsistent with the rules of dagesh Qal and Hazzak. Since at least in two places can be no doubt that it should be dagesh Qal: Habakkuk 3:13 and Psalms 52:5.
Dagesh Hazak also for the two cases of Alef as we would have expected, even though the dot is actually in between the sizes of dagesh kal and dagesh hazak; because of the lack of space.
P.S. There is no Resh with dot = Rresh in Job 39:9, or 2 Chronicles 26:10 in the Koren or Artscroll Tanach, but they do appear in the Feldheim Tanach with simanim as dagesh Hazak. https://www.feldheim.com/tanach-simanim-hebrew-only
Wonder which is the complete list for Rresh. Are there more than 15, some mentioned 17 other 19.
Answer 6.
Excerpt from: HIDĀYAT AL-QĀRIʾ (SHORT VERSION) Geoffrey Khan (author)
Chapter of: The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew, Volume 2(pp. 194–253)
II.S.1.2. Take note that the place of articulation oḟ א̇ה̇ח̇ע is the root of the tongue and the place of swallowing, that is the throat and the base of the tongue. For this reason they are the lightest of the letters and never take dagesh. It may be thought that he and ʾalef take dagesh, but this is not the case. This is because the dot in the he at the end of a word indicates the (consonantal) property of the he. Surely you see that the property of the he at the beginning and in the middle of a word appears without a dot.
As for (the dot in) ʾalef in the four places (where it is found), namely ל֛וֹ וַיָּבִ֥יוּאּ ‘and they brought him’ (Gen. 43.26), תָּבִ֣יוּאּ ‘you shall bring’ (Lev. 23.17), לָ֜נוּ וַיָּבִ֙יוּאּ ‘and they brought to us’ (Ezra 8.18), רֻאּֽוּ לֹ֣א ‘were not seen’ (Job 33.21), this reflects a strong effort to pronounce the letter by the reader and is not dagesh.
Answer 7:
But see the Rav GPT also 👇.
Another answer from Rav GPT after corrections underlined by “Heshy”: Traditionally, Resh does not typically take a dagesh in Hebrew grammar. However, there are exceptions in masoretic note traditions that indicate a rare occurrence of a dagesh in Resh.
Such instances are exceedingly rare and the product of particular scribal traditions rather than standard Hebrew grammar.
Another occurrence sometimes noted by commentators where the dagesh is used to indicate an emphatic pronunciation due to the phonetic context, which can be influenced by the guttural letter (Ayin) that follows.
It's important to note that the presence of a dagesh in Resh is generally not considered part of standard Hebrew orthography and can be the result of scribal practices that may differ from one textual tradition to another. In modern printed editions of the Tanach, you would likely not find a dagesh in a Resh, as the original reasons for such markings are not part of contemporary Hebrew grammar. Or are difficult to realize because of technical and financial reasons.
** Answer 8 ** More on strange letters: https://www.academia.edu/43455678/TEACHING_OTIOT_MESHUNOT_FROM_SCRIBAL_BIBLICAL_HEBREW_TEXTS
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Answer 9
For an amusing answer, see
FLY-SPECK by Ambrose Bierce
-n.
The prototype of punctuation. It is observed by Garvinus that the systems of punctuation in use by the various literary nations depended originally upon the social habits and general diet of the flies infesting the several countries. These creatures, which have always been distinguished for a neighborly and companionable familiarity with authors, liberally or niggardly embellish the manuscripts in process of growth under the pen, according to their bodily habit, bringing out the sense of the work by a species of interpretation superior to, and independent of, the writer's powers. The "old masters" of literature - that is to say, the early writers whose work is so esteemed by later scribes and critics in the same language - never punctuated at all, but worked right along free-handed, without that abruption of the thought which comes from the use of points. (We observe the same thing in children to-day, whose usage in this particular is a striking and beautiful instance of the law that the infancy of individuals reproduces the methods and stages of development characterizing the infancy of races.) In the work of these primitive scribes all the punctuation is found, by the modern investigator with his optical instruments and chemical tests, to have been inserted by the writers' ingenious and serviceable collaborator, the common house-fly - Musca maledicta. In transcribing these ancient MSS, for the purpose of either making the work their own or preserving what they naturally regard as divine revelations, later writers reverently and accurately copy whatever marks they find upon the papyrus or parchment, to the unspeakable enhancement of the lucidity of the thought and value of the work. Writers contemporary with the copyists naturally avail themselves of the obvious advantages of these marks in their own work, and with such assistance as the flies of their own household may be willing to grant, frequently rival and sometimes surpass the older compositions, in respect at least of punctuation, which is no small glory. Fully to understand the important services that flies perform to literature it is only necessary to lay a page of some popular novelist alongside a saucer of cream-and-molasses in a sunny room and observe "how the wit brightens and the style refines" in accurate proportion to the duration of exposure.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
