legarmeh or munach pasek?

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

According to R. Breuer, who cites Wickes as his source, if a munach appears directly before a revi'i and has a vertical line after it, it is to be read as a munach legarmeh (with one exception, in the haftara of B'reishis). Jacobson asserts that a legarmeh cannot immediately precede a revi'i, and therefore munach-line-revi'i is to be read munach (mesharet) pasek, revi'i (though he does cite Breuer in a footnote). What do people on this list do in this circumstance? Does anyone know an earlier sources on the matter?

Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine (Emergency Medicine)
Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Bioethics
Columbia Universit

[Mordecahi Neeman]

As I davened and leind for about 40 years in the  shul with R. Breuer, I always did it his way. He insisted upon it. Once he was asked about it concerning the leining in Chanuka concerning Shneyhem | Mleim. He reassured that it is a munach legarmeh and NOT a pasek.

 

Mordechai

---

From: Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy...@nyu.edu>
To: Leining group <lei...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 4:49:59 AM
Subject: [leining] legarmeh or munach pasek?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.

[MG]

Heidenheim says that one cannot have a pasek preceding a revia, except
for that one exception you noted (Isiah 42:5). So it is always a
legarmeh.
See here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7218&st=&pgnum=15
And here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7218&st=&pgnum=68






On Jan 5, 9:49 pm, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Just to see what would happen, I asked chrome to translate the page of mishpetei hate'amim when it came up. The PDF wasn't translated, but the hebrewbook heading was, and the title of the book was translated as "Legal Reasons" :)

As to substance, thanks for the reference. I wonder what Jacobson's source was. Perhaps I will write to him. Does anyone know what Heidenheim's source was? At the top of p. 14 it seems to me that he may be referring to a masoretic note, but if so, it's not clear to me where it is.

Jeremy

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.

[MG]

On the posuk of "Zeh Yitenu" in the beginning of Ki Tisa there is a
Masoretic note indicating that this is one of three places in Tanach
where "zeh" appears at the beginning of a posuk with a legarmeh. And
there is obviously no second munach in-between. That could have been
a source for Heidenheim.



On Jan 6, 11:03 am, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[rabbiri...@gmail.com]

On the posuk of "Zeh Yitenu" in the beginning of Ki Tisa there is a Masoretic note indicating that this is one of three places in Tanach where "zeh" appears at the beginning of a posuk with a legarmeh.»

Is Umiqneh Rav in Mas'ei one of them?

Shalom
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

The note is only about the word Zeh, not all cases of legarmeh-revi'i at the beginning of a pasuk (which is what I assume your example is, though I don't have a chumash Bamidbar at my desk).

Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine (Emergency Medicine)
Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Bioethics

Columbia University

[MG]

No, because "Umiqneh" is not "Zeh"

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Jan 6, 11:03 am, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:
>

> Does anyone know what Heidenheim's source was? At the top of p. 14
> it seems to me that he may be referring to a masoretic note, but if so,
> it's not clear to me where it is.

Does Heidenheim really need a "source"? My impression is that
Heidenheim sometimes (often?) made things up, and later scholars think
of HIM as a source.

GEK

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

He doesn't need a source, but it's good to know when he has one and when he doesn't. Anyway, as mark has already pointed out, the masorah in Devarim supports his position. As for where Jacobson get's his position from -- I've written him. We'll see if and what he responds.

Jeremy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Giorgies E. Kepipesiom" <kepip...@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, January 6, 2011 1:40 pm
Subject: [leining] Re: legarmeh or munach pasek?
To: leining <lei...@googlegroups.com>

[MG]

Did a little digging. In discussing the legarmeh's heirarchy among
the mafsiqim Hanau calls it in passing "a munach that comes before a
munach revia". But it's hard to determine if he's excluding cases
where there is just a revia without a munach in-between.

Then I saw this from the Siach Yitzchak, brother of the Taz:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22734&st=&pgnum=126
For those who can't click the link, he says that a legarmeh is either
a munach (with a line, of course) followed by a munach revia OR a
munach (with a line) immediately followed by a revia (with no other
munach in-between) ONLY IF it comes at the beginning of a posuk. So
if it begins a posuk (like Zeh | Yitenu or Umiqneh | Rav) it would be
a legarmeh but "Sheneihim | Meleyim" would not be a legarmeh.

So perhaps there are now three opinions?




On Jan 6, 1:50 pm, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

I see how you get that from his siman 14 on legarmeh. But if you look at siman 13, jsut before, on pasek, he makes an unqualified statement that a pasek only comes between a munach and revi'i once (in the haftarah of bereishis), indicating that any other place such an alignment of marks occurs it is a legarmeh. Indeed, putting the two simanim together, almost makes me think that his text almost never has this line between a munach and a revi'i. (With the one exception noted. This is further supported, ISTM, by the text of 14. He (seems to) says that legarmeh never immediately precedes a revi'i in the middle of a pasuk, and the one time it does occur, it is a pasek. _The_ one time?!, What about all of the others we know of. I'm sure I'm misreading something here, but I'm not sure how to make sense of it otherwise.

[MG]

Yes, I think he's saying that a munach with a line simply does not
exist in the middle of a pasuk immediately before a revia.
So all of those places where we have a line with only one munach, such
as "sheneihem | meleim", he just didn't have a line there. Except
that one time in Isaiah where there is a line and there it is a
paseik, not a legarmeh.

Still, this would qualify as a third opinion becuase he would have you
lein "Zeh | Yitenu" as legarmeh but "sheneihem | meleim" would not be
legarmeh. vs. Breuer where both are legarmeh and Jacobsen where
neither are legarmeh.

Unless you want to toss his opinion out altogether because we "know"
that there is indeed a line in these places?




On Jan 6, 3:05 pm, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:

> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -

[rjhe...@juno.com]

Breuer (Mishpetai Hateamim) says there are FIFTEEN cases in which a MUNAX PASAYK prior to a non revii is a LEGARMAY not a PASAYK  (One of them is Machalath end of toledoth).

In passing I was surprised that Wickes was cited (as a source of anything). These lists were compiled by the masorites and are in the mesorah ketanah and gedolah.

Russell

____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!

[rjhe...@juno.com]

MUNAX LEGARMAY is an alternate form of GERESH (the same way Zakef gadol is an alternate form of Zakef).

In passing: Probably the least understood rule in teamim (Does anyone have a different one) is when to use MUNAX LEGARMAY (Before revii) and when to use geresh/gershayim. I haven't even seen an attempt (SOURCE: Breuer's mishpetay hateamim)

____________________________________________________________
Globe Life Insurance
$1* Buys $50,000 Life Insurance. Adults or Children. No Medical Exam.
CoverageFor1Dollar.com

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

That list is fo places where legarmeh precedes a pashta (or at anyrate, a ta'am other than a munach). This is not what he cites wickes for. He cites wickes as to the fact that a munach pasek immediately before a revi'i is a (becomes a) legarmeh. In general, though, R. Breuer quotes Wickes quite a lot.
Jeremy

> http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

I know that Jacobson says _something_ on this matter, though I have no idea what.

Jeremy

----- Original Message -----
From: "rjhe...@juno.com" <rjhe...@juno.com>
Date: Friday, January 7, 2011 11:51 am
Subject: [leining] legarmeh or munach pasek?
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
Cc: rjhe...@juno.com

> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d274483587ea9ea929st05duc

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Mordechai,
Two questions about R. Breuer's shitot regarding leining, if he made them known. First, how did he identify shva na vs. nach. In particular, was a general shva after a tnu'a gedola na or nach. Second, did anyone in that minyan lein with havarah ashkenazit. If so, did R. Breuer think they should distinguish between kamatz gadol and kamatz katan.

Jeremy

> leining+u...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
>
>
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.

[rabbiri...@gmail.com]

If so, did R. Breuer think they should distinguish between kamatz gadol and kamatz katan.

Jeremy »

Dr. Zalman Levine answered me this one

And I believe I posted it

YES R M Breuer did distinguish QQ and QG even for ashk'nazim

It's the only part of Dr. Levine's reading that "feels funny"

Not the ayin not the sh;va's or mappiq's. That one just feels alien to me

Shabbat Shalom

RRW



Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Thanks. Now that you mention it, I think you may have mentioned it before. I would still like to hear from Mordechai, because if he confirms, I have follow up questions.

[Meir BenChayim]

     What was the distinction?

 
> To: lei...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [leining] legarmeh or munach pasek?

> From: rabbiri...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 18:59:24 +0000

[RJHendel]

Jeremy
1st) The 15 exceptions are for MUNAX PASAYK before ANY non-revii taam (I
gave the example of machalath end of toledoth before a pazer) It wasnt
just for pashthah

2nd) The issue you deal with - munax pasayk revii is dealt by a footnote
in Mishpetay hateamim I read this motzaei shabbos so you will have to
wait till next week for me to dig it out

3rd) Breuer in mispetay hateamim NEVER cites Wickes. Wickes is not an
authority. The Mesorah is. I am almost certain he brings some mesorah's
down and there are similar issues in Psalms.

Russell (Will look this one up)

____________________________________________________________
Globe Life Insurance
$1* Buys $50,000 Life Insurance. Adults or Children. No Medical Exam.

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d28f68a49adaa18bc2st04duc

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Russell,
My point was that he does not cite Wickes at all regarding legarmeh before other teamim, but only regarding the fact that a legarmeh can fall immediately before a revi'i. As for your assertion that R. Breuer does not cite wickes, it is simply false. He does. Indeed, that sefer was the first place I heard of Wickes, and I had no idea what the name was, since it was spelled vav-vav-yod-kuf-samech.

Jeremy

----- Original Message -----
From: RJHendel <rjhe...@juno.com>
Date: Saturday, January 8, 2011 6:44 pm
Subject: [leining] legarmeh or munach pasek?

To: lei...@googlegroups.com
Cc: rjhe...@juno.com

[MG]

Of course Breuer quotes Wickes. It's all over the sefer.
(Mishpetei Hateamim is the name of Heidenheim's sefer; not Breuer's.
Perhaps you are asserting that Heidenheim never quotes Wickes, which
is of course true.)

Furthermore, why isn't Wickes an authority? Perhaps if he disagrees
with a Jewish scholar, I can see someone dismissing him. But why
wouldn't we accept the truth from whoever says it?

[rabbiri...@gmail.com]

     What was the distinction?»

Hard to reproduce in writing.

I guess you mightl say slightly more
OWE
Than
AWE

But NOT a Holam either

Maybe if I can have him record it?...

Shavua Tov

[Mordecahi Neeman]

Jeremy,

 

Shva after tnu'a gedole he regarded as shva na, as you assumed.

In our shul nobody leined with Havara Ashkenazit. R. Breuer himself switched completely to Havara Sefaradit for leining. He prayed also in havara Sefaradit, except for Kriat shma.

 

Mordechai

---

From: Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy...@nyu.edu>

To: lei...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 8:29:00 PM

> leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
>
>
>     
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[RJHendel]

Hi

MARK: You write "What is the distinction" Was this addressed to me? What
was your question

JEREMY: a) I understood the MUNAX Legarmay i) before revii ii) before
non-revii distinction which is why I cited the footnote which I said I
would look up

b) It is TRUE that Breuer did not cite Wickes - I was referring to PISUQ
TEAMIM SHEBAMIQRAH(See next note)

MARK: a) If you are going out of your way to correct my mistake (I
asserted Breuers Mishpetay Hateamim) you had an equal opportunity to
assme that 1) BREUER should be replaced by HEIDENHEIM or 2) Mishpetay
Hateamim should be REPLACED by PISUK TEAMIM SHEBAMIQRAH (The book breuer
wrote). Why not make the correction intelligent (Heidenheim lived before
Wickes so he obviously doesn't quote him) At any rate the full statement
I should make is
- Breuer
- in Pisuq Teamim Shebamiqrah
does not cite Wickes.
I believe this is true.
Jeremy do you know an instance? Also you mention "He cites wickes all
over the place" TO which publication does this refer

MARK b) AND EVERYONE ELSE "Why shouldn't breuer cite Wickes"

Because the authority for TEAMIM is the Mesorah. Wickes is a secondary
authority. So in PISUQ TEAMIM Breuer cites the MESORAH all over the
place. He does not cite Wickes Furthermore he should not be citing
Wickes; he should be citing primary sources.

I again reiterate that I have a low opinion of Wickes - he had no
business denying a Talmudic interpretation and making fun of the
Masorites and say they made something up after the fact. I again refer
you to my article http://www.Rashiyomi.com/puns.pdf

Russell

____________________________________________________________
Globe Life Insurance
$1* Buys $50,000 Life Insurance. Adults or Children. No Medical Exam.

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d29cc56181f3aa127fst02duc

[MG]

First of all, I believe that when people here say "Breuer" they mean
his "Taamei Hamiqrah". If you meant a different sefer you should have
said so. I can't read your mind when you say "Breuer's Mishpetei
HaTeamim".
Regardless, what is the difference if Breuer doesn't quote Wickes in
an earlier sefer? The FACT is that Breuer does quote him, in "Taamei
Hamiqrah", all over the sefer.
Either we are going to give credence to Breuer or we aren't.

> you to my articlehttp://www.Rashiyomi.com/puns.pdf