I see a machloket sidurim and Tanachim about the Na of Hasem Hatlicha Na in the hallel.

  1. Many sidurim was with dagesh on Hoshianna and not on hatslicha na. I searched an explanation.
  2. The explanation found what that the hatslicha is milera, so the na is not dagush and the hoSHia is mileel, that entail a dagesh chazak on the next word nna.
  3. But I discovered the Tehilim Feldheim Simanim and the first astonishment where dissiped, both are Daguesh:
    @msh210 demonstrated that the source is the Aleppo Codex. On the Leningrad Codex I pasted this
    אָנָּ֣א יְ֭הוָה הוֹשִׁ֘יעָ֥ה נָּ֑א אָֽנָּ֥א יְ֝הוָ֗ה הַצְלִ֘יחָ֥ה נָּֽא׃ ‏
    Zarka (mishne lemelech) mercha (a mesharet) etnachta (keysar), Zarka mercha siluk.
  4. But both are milera and my old teruts become a Kashia why is there a dagesh after milera?
  5. . Is there someone which can explain this?
I see in this book Yesod Hanikud Shaar Hadagesh paragraph 28 (כח) a potential explanation but not understand wholly.

והמיל השלישי אשר נכלל בדין דחיק הוא לדעתי מה שהזכירו המדקדקים בדין אתי מרחיק כי גם דין זה אינו נוכג אלא בה"א ולא בשאר אותיות אהו"י כמו בשאר דיני דחיק ואולם בעיקר הדין לא כיוונו המדקדקים יפה והכלל כל תיבה שהיא בטעם משרת שבופה קמץ ואחרי הקמץ ה"א נחה, ... והמילה היא מלעיל בעצם בראשונה, רצוני לומר שאין הטעם נסוג אחור, מפני קירוב הטעמים והמילה שאחריה תהיה לה הנגינה באות הראשונה. אז היא דגושה כמו וְשָׁכַח֙ אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר-עָשִׂ֣יתָ לּ֔וֹ ‏

This is an explanation for hoshia nna. if hoshia is mil'el but @msh210 demonstrated that it is milera.

I can guess that the reason is because hoshia is usualy mile'el and hatslicha also. Am I Right?

  • Related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/8182
    – msh210
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 6:21
  • 1
    Why would it not have a Dagesh? What do you know about degeishim? Do you know the term Dechik? It's be easier to help you understand if you'd clarify what exactly is unexpected to you here. That way we don't explain things you didn't need explained and make sure to capture the important point.
    – Double AA
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 6:53
  • @DoubleAA when I will get some time I will search the rule in Michlol. a few hours are needed.
    – kouty
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 7:01
  • I found this
    – kouty
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 10:14
  • @DoubleAA It seems that the siba is Melachim and the na is daggesh chalach.
    – kouty
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 10:52

1 Answer 1


The reason for the dagesh in נא is because of a phenomenon known as deḥiq (aka, apparently, ate meraḥiq). Deḥiq is the name for when a word receives an initial dagesh when:

  1. The word before the word getting the deḥiq end in a vowel.
  2. The stress on the word preceding that with the deḥiq is penultimate (milʿel)
  3. The stress on the word preceding that with the deḥiq is marked by a conjunctive accent (or a maqef merges the words).
  4. The stress on the word receiving the deḥiq is on the initial syllable (or one after a shewa naʿ). More rarely, the stress on the word getting the deḥiq is not initial, but an initial secondary stress is present (marked my a gaʿya), e.g. וְעָשִׂ֤יתָ סִּֽירֹתָיו֙ (Shemot 27:3).

It appears that siddurim that do not have a dagesh within the nuns of the two נאs are not quoting Tehillim accurately. The verse in Hallel is from Tehillim 118:25.

The words נא in the verse have deḥiqs, because (1) they are preceded by words that end in vowels and (3) conjunctive accents (ṣinnorit): הַצְלִ֘יחָ֥ה , הוֹשִׁ֘יעָ֥ה. Finally, (4) the word נא has initial stress.

Though הַצְלִ֘יחָ֥ה , הוֹשִׁ֘יעָ֥ה have ultimate stress, Yeivin considers thees to be an exceptional case of deḥiq lacking a maqqef (Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah p. 291). There are other exceptional examples of deḥiqs in general, e.g. Jer 48:4, Psalms 17:10.

Note that the function of the deḥiqs is unclear, as is how deḥiq is meant to affect the pronunciation of the text.

See Yeivin's book:

Introduction to Tiberian Masorah p. 291

  • @DoubleAA If I understand the question correctly, it is not. The reason that there is a variance in the dageshing of na' is certainly a result of miscopying and bad mss.
    – Argon
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 20:59
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat.
    – Argon
    Commented May 16, 2016 at 6:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .