Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

[Richard]

it seems to me that reading gershayim before telisha gedolah is highly irregular.  I'm aware of eight places in the Torah where the two notes appear over adjacent words and in seven of these places the telisha gedolah is over the first word (Bereishis 18:28, 30 and 32; Shemos 25:33, 33:12 and 37:19; and Devarim 27:12).  The one contrary example appears to be Devarim 26:12.  Are there any other examples of this combination in the Torah?  Does anyone know how many times the pattern appears in Tanach?  

Edward Perelmuter »

Welcome aboard Edward. This is avery astute observation.     

Be Well.
-----------------------------------------
Shalom and Best Regards,
RRW

MISTAKES are always forgivable
If you have the courage to admit them.

[Richard]

My Buest Guess is:

That there were 2 competing traditions re: the correct trop. And so putting the TG first, might actually highlight that this is NOT the case of 2 pauses so much as the case of a doubt as to which pause is correct.

[Ari]

RRW:

I think rav Breuer explains the double trop here as a safek of reading traditions. Both trops can come here and no way to say one is more correct (and hence also no practical difference in pause)
I think this is what he says

Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Give a child the best birthday present ever . . . the ability to live to celebrate yet another birthday. Visit https://www.dkmsamericas.org/register to register as a bone marrow donor.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,


The problem I have with Richard's guess is that we have several examples of a "machloket" re. the correct trop, and in every one of those cases, some chumashim will have one note while others will have the other--they're not both placed on the same word. Minchat Shai (and others) will sometimes weigh in on this while paying homage to the other opinion, but never is it suggested to place both on the word.


KT,
Avi Herzog

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,


I now see, after my response to Richard, that Rav Breuer may suggest the same thing. So Richard clearly has "raglayim" here. So now I'll pose it as a question: Why do we only find a double-note with t'lisha and geirshayim? Why not in other cases where there's a doubt?


KT,
Avi H

On 02/23/14, Ari wrote:

RRW:

I think rav Breuer explains the double trop here as a safek of reading traditions. Both trops can come here and no way to say one is more correct (and hence also no practical difference in pause)
I think this is what he says

Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Give a child the best birthday present ever . . . the ability to live to celebrate yet another birthday. Visit https://www.dkmsamericas.org/register to register as a bone marrow donor.

[Richard]

The problem I have with Richard's guess is that we have several examples of a "machloket" re. the correct trop, and in every one of those cases, some chumashim will have one note while others will have the other--t»

That is a bit of an over statement IMHO

All you can prove is that any machlokes AFTER the Masoretes is in various editions

This does not address the case where the Masoretes themselves were faced with 2 traditions. EG the Bavli is replete with Lishna kama and lishna basra which are preserved.

So to say ALL differences of opinions seems to me to me a bit of a reach.

Moreover, as per Ari Kinsberg R Mordechai Breuer apparently drew a similar conclusion.

[yash...@gmail.com]

Thank you all for the welcome and the prompt responses.  Although I respect Rav Breuer with regard to the leining (I use his tikkun that I picked up in Bnei Brak a few years ago), Rabbeinu Bechaya to the double trop in Bereishis over Zeh indicates that in his view there is far more here than a case of conflicting traditions.  He leaves no doubt that in his view, both notes belong there and that there are profound reasons for those two notes.  The Baal HaTurim to VaYikra 10:4 also expounds those two notes.  Does Rav Breuer discuss those comments?  Are they reconcilable with his opinion?  I'm not familiar with the mesorah of the trop (Rabbeinu Bechaya states explicitly that it comes from Sinai).  So my question would be from where did those Rishonim get their trop?     

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,

I cede Richard's point, that there may be differences as to when doubts came into place, which may provide an answer to my subsequent e-mail which posed this as a question.

KT,

Avi H

On 02/23/14, Richard wrote:


The problem I have with Richard's guess is that we have several examples of a "machloket" re. the correct trop, and in every one of those cases, some chumashim will have one note while others will have the other--t»

That is a bit of an over statement IMHO

All you can prove is that any machlokes AFTER the Masoretes is in various editions

This does not address the case where the Masoretes themselves were faced with 2 traditions. EG the Bavli is replete with Lishna kama and lishna basra which are preserved.

So to say ALL differences of opinions seems to me to me a bit of a reach.

Moreover, as per Ari Kinsberg R Mordechai Breuer apparently drew a similar conclusion.

[Richard]

As far as I can tell:

Both R Bachayai and the Tur were working from Mystical Traditions, R Bachayai from Kabbalah, the Tur from Hassidei Ashkenaz.

In their respective systems, there indeed may be mystical implications to these double notes.

So it all depends upon your Hashkafah etc.

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,

I always felt that there may be a third option here: that while each ta'am has a technical reason for its assignation, there at times may also be an additional reason.

KT,

Avi

[Richard]

«I cede Richard's point, that there may be differences as to when doubts came into place, which may provide an answer to my subsequent e-mail which posed this as a question.

KT,
Avi H»

Exactly L'mashal:

The Gemara may have 2 traditions of a story, and both are preserved.

Whereas 2 competing rishonim may have 2 Girsaos in the G'mara and bring just one each.

I'm guessing that the Masoretes themselves respected 2 diverse traditions by codifying 2 t'amim here.

[yash...@gmail.com]

RabbiRi:

This particular note appears only three times in all of Tanach: Bereishis 5:29 (Zeh), VaYikra 10:4 (Kirvu) and Tzephania 2:15 (Zos).  It seems odd that there would be uncertainty in only these three widely removed places.  There are two places in Tanach where there is a double trop azlah geireish and telisha gedolah (one in Melachim and one in Yechezkiel). So I assume that Rav Breuer would say that there were conflicting traditions in those places as well?  I would feel more satisfied by the conflicting traditions explanation if there were examples of gershayim and telisha gedolah over the words zeh, kirvu and zos in other places in Tanach.  I suppose, however, that because telisha gedolah and gershayim are found repeatedly over adjacent words, some conflation of the two could arise.  I'm not sure, however, whether that observation could be made for azlah geireish and telisha gedolah. 

An interesting point is that the majority of sources I consulted in Tzephania do not have a notation to read the gershayim before the telisha Gedolah. That might be a product of the fact that we do not read Tzaphania as a haftarah.  Or, it could have a deeper meaning . . .  

[Richard]

This particular note appears only three times in all of Tanach: Bereishis 5:29 (Zeh), VaYikra 10:4 (Kirvu) and Tzephania 2:15 (Zos).  It seems odd that there would be uncertainty in only these three widely removed places.»

Could be, or that these constitute similar contexts that triggered 2 diverse understandings, and that they manifested in these 3 places.

I don't know. I'm only offering a guess based upon "logic". That 2 traditions were allowed to stand or encouraged to be perpetuated, maybe because there was not definitive or dispositive choice. Like "teiku"

[Richard]

Sorry -
I meant to say contextually within the structure of the passuk or phrase, not the context of the subject. IOW the context of the Pausal form.

[yash...@gmail.com]

Rabbi Ri:

Your response raises a halachic question in my mind.  If the baal korei reverses the order and sings the telisha gedolah first (I've heard this done with the one in Bereishis) should we correct him?  If it's simply a matter of doubt probably not?  But if there is deeper significance perhaps yes?  

[Richard]

Your response raises a halachic question in my mind.  If the baal korei reverses the order and sings the telisha gedolah first (I've heard this done with the one in Bereishis) should we correct him?  If it's simply a matter of doubt probably not?  But if there is deeper significance perhaps yes? »

I don't get it

we simply follow the p'sak of the Masoretes.

As to the impact upon the laining, I don't know.


As to getting to higher mystical purposes, I will post on that one.

[AMK Judaica]

Yashar (name?)
 
R. Breuer doesn't discuss those comments.

**********

Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************

Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

---

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 15:33:12 -0800
From: yash...@gmail.com
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

[AMK Judaica]

Yashar,
 
(I'm turning this into a separate thread.)
 
Why would you correct him if he reverses them?
I think the general consensus in the poskim is that one only corrects trop if one mixes up a mesharet vs. mafsik.
And le-maase, even this we don't do today.*
But even if we did correct such errors today, in this case there would be no need for a correction. not only are we dealing with 2 mafsikim, but they are of the same class! so according to pisuk ha-teamim, tachlis there is no difference.
(Also, I personally don't always understand how to pause after telish gedola or geresh, as these are very minor pauses.)
 
If one argues that a baal kore should be corrected if the error contradicts a "deeper" or mystical meaning, then wouldn't this become an issue of ein la-davar sof? (related, someone once asked me if when leining, may/should one have drash or mystical interpretation of the words in mind. but then which one?)
 
 
*I have seen in Yemenite shuls where they correct trop for pausal purposes. In Ashkenaz shuls in my experience most trop correction are not really for the purpose of correction, but rather to get the baal kore back on track. Certainly no one is ever corrected because of the issue of mesharet vs. mafsik.
 
a related question I've always had is what is of greater import when distinguishing mafsik vs. mesharet. is it the tune or the actual pause? the general practice is not to be careful about the proper pauses. but should one be corrected if he uses the proper tunes but not the proper pauses? or the proper pauses but not the proper tune?

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

---

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:42:55 -0800
From: yash...@gmail.com
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
CC: yash...@gmail.com; rabbi.ri...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

[AMK Judaica]

AVRAM:
 
I think there is more ambiguity when it comes to assigning shelishim. and specifically within shelishim, there is no clear rule with le-garme vs. geresh/gershayim.
generally in cases where there is doubt, one can argue in favor of one or the other with the the derived rules of continuous dichotomy, or when within a particular class, the derived rules for the trops within that class.
but in the cases of kirvu et al, there is no possibility to resolve the doubt with the rules. hence both trops were retained?

**********

Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************

Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:12:42 -0600
> From: avm...@verizon.net
> To: lei...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

[AMK Judaica]

RRW:
 
rav breuer does accept cases of double trops that represent 2 differing traditions, i.e., elyon vs. tachton representing east vs. west.
but even here the resolution doesn't involve reading the words with both trops together.

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

> Subject: Re: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

> To: lei...@googlegroups.com
> From: rabbiri...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 23:18:46 +0000

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,


This sounds like a plausible explanation. Nice logic, Ari.


Avi H

On 02/24/14, AMK Judaica wrote:





AVRAM:

I think there is more ambiguity when it comes to assigning shelishim. and specifically within shelishim, there is no clear rule with le-garme vs. geresh/gershayim.
generally in cases where there is doubt, one can argue in favor of one or the other with the the derived rules of continuous dichotomy, or when within a particular class, the derived rules for the trops within that class.
but in the cases of kirvu et al, there is no possibility to resolve the doubt with the rules. hence both trops were retained?

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:12:42 -0600
> From: avm...@verizon.net
> To: lei...@googlegroups.com

> Subject: Re: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word
>
>

> Hi,
>
>
> I now see, after my response to Richard, that Rav Breuer may suggest the same thing. So Richard clearly has "raglayim" here. So now I'll pose it as a question: Why do we only find a double-note with t'lisha and geirshayim? Why not in other cases where there's a doubt?
>
>
> KT,
> Avi H
>
>
> On 02/23/14, Ari wrote:
>
> RRW:
>
> I think rav Breuer explains the double trop here as a safek of reading traditions. Both trops can come here and no way to say one is more correct (and hence also no practical difference in pause)
> I think this is what he says
>

> Ari Kinsberg
> MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
> Brooklyn, New York
> **************

> Give a child the best birthday present ever . . . the ability to live to celebrate yet another birthday. Visit https://www.dkmsamericas.org/register to register as a bone marrow donor.

>
> > On Feb 23, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Richard <rabbiri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My Buest Guess is:
> >
> > That there were 2 competing traditions re: the correct trop. And so putting the TG first, might actually highlight that this is NOT the case of 2 pauses so much as the case of a doubt as to which pause is correct.

[Richard]

but in the cases of kirvu et al, there is no possibility to resolve the doubt with the rules. hence both trops were retained?»

That is what I meant by "context" that in the context of these verses there was an inherent ambiguity

But I suspect that the ambiguity triggered 2 traditions, too. Otherwise, I would have supposed that a consensus settled the matter.

Ari, I think we agree that these cases are a kind of "teiku" we let the 2 versions "stand"

[AMK Judaica]

Yashar,
 
to clarify
 
"This particular note appears only three times in all of Tanach . . ."

 

the telish/geresh is the same as the telishsa/gershayim. there is just one group of 5 occurences to be accounted for as a unit, not 3 and 2 separately as you presented it. geresh and gershayim are temurot, and so for our purposes here the same trop.

"So I assume that Rav Breuer would say that there were conflicting traditions in those places as well?"

 

yes, because per above, they aren't to be treated separately

 

"I would feel more satisfied by the conflicting traditions explanation if there were examples of gershayim and telisha gedolah over the words zeh, kirvu and zos in other places in Tanach"

 

why? my argument elsewhere is that isn't the specific words that result in the double trop, but rather the specific syntactic position of these words.

 

"the majority of sources I consulted in Tzephania do not have a notation to read the gershayim before the telisha Gedolah"

 

which sources do you mean? by the way, the keter aram tzova and Leningrad codex have the gershayim first in tzephania. perhaps there Is no Masoretic note there (because none is really necessary since just read them normally in the order they appear)? if so, maybe this accounts for the lack of a note in the sources you cited? (but would need track down if really no note in tzefanya, and also how the trop is written in the other 4 instances in these mss and the corresponding notes--or lack thereof)

 

"whether that observation could be made for azlah geireish and telisha gedolah"

 

azla geresh can't come after a telisha gedola

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

---

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:13:02 -0800
From: yash...@gmail.com
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
CC: rabbi.ri...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

[AMK Judaica]

yes

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

> Subject: Re: RE: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word
> To: lei...@googlegroups.com
> From: rabbiri...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:21:07 +0000

[Shmuel Rabin]

<<azla geresh can't come after a telisha gedola>>

Sure it can. See Bereishis 14:7, 37:7, Shmos 28:21.

[AMK Judaica]

sorry, right, but only if the word is milra. right? in our instances it is milel.

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

---

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:44:47 +0000
From: baal...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word
To: lei...@googlegroups.com

[Shmuel Rabin]

I'm not sure what you mean. In the first example I gave both words are mil'el. [Obviously the second word would have to be mil'el, as otherwise it would be gershayim.] In any case as you wrote before - geresh and gershayim are essentially the same trop.

I wouldn't attach any importance to the absence of a note in Tzefanya. It's probably just because it's not read in public nowadays, so it wasn't deemed important to note.

[yash...@gmail.com]

I checked three sources with regard to the telisha gedolah/azlah geireish combination found in 2 Melachim 17:13 and Yechezkiel 48:10--two mikraos gedolos and an older version of Art Scroll Tanach.  In Yechezkiel, all three sources place the telisha gedolah to the right of the azlah geiresh.  In Melachim, two of the three sources have the azlah geiresh on the right.  None of these sources has a notation about which note should be read first (but see further down on this).  My version of the ArtScroll Tanach does not have a notation for the double trop in Tzephania.   I vaguely recall, however, that a newer version of that Tanach does state that the gershayim should be pronounced before the telisha gedolah. 

So someone apparently picked up on this. 

As an abstract proposition, I am uncomfortable with the idea of lumping gershayim and azlah gereish together and treating them as the same thing.  To  be sure they are closely related, since  they are all third level mafsikim.  But the fact remains that they are different notes so logic suggests that they serve different functions (though not necessarily for the issue we're discussing).  

Be that as it may, the ArtScroll version of the Baal HaTurim to Sefer VaYikra (page 1091 n.39) discusses a masoretic note to the double trop in parashas Shemini that does lump these five cases of double notes together as you posit.  ArtScroll states that "the masoretic note concludes with the cryptic statement: And there is a verse that can be used as a mnemonic: "Ki Sichaleh LaSer" (Devarim 26:12).  As I pointed out before, that verse is a distinct exception to the general rule that telisha gedolah precedes gershayim when the two notes are over adjacent words.  A post by Mr. Neeman in another thread cited 32 examples of this pattern in the Torah alone.  As far as I know, Devarim 26:12 may be the only counter example. Artscroll cites Tikkun Sofrim (Dubna) and Masores HaKeriah for the proposition that the mnemonic means that, just as in the phrase in Devarim 26:12, the gershayim and the azlah geiresh are pronounced before the telisha gedolah.  But if the presence of both notes is simply a concession to divergent traditions that have equal validity as Rav Breuer suggests, why depart from the general rule that telisha gedolah precedes gershayim?  Doesn't that departure suggest that something deeper is going on here?  As I understand it, Rav Breuer suggests that this sequential departure is justified by the principle that Tadir has precedence over Lo Tadir, which apparently means that gershayim is found more often in the Torah (or Tanach) than telisha gedolah.  I have no way of knowing how many times each note appears, although my experience tells me that, at least in the Torah, there most likely wouldn't be a dramatic disparity.  But why even look to that global factor instead of focusing on the more pertinent sequential relationship of telisha gedolah and gershayim, where, at least in the Torah, the former almost always has precedence?  Furthermore, I would be very surprised to find out that azlah geiresh appears more often in Tanach than telisha gedolah.  (It certainly doesn't seem to in the Torah.)  If it doesn't, how would Rav Breuer explain the masoretic note I cited above that gives precedence to azlah geiresh?

Edward Perelmuter 

[Shmuel Rabin]

On Monday, 24 February 2014, 21:53, "yash...@gmail.com" <yash...@gmail.com> wrote:

<<<I checked three sources with regard to the telisha gedolah/azlah geireish combination found in 2 Melachim 17:13 and Yechezkiel 48:10--two mikraos gedolos and an older version of Art Scroll Tanach.  In Yechezkiel, all three sources place the telisha gedolah to the right of the azlah geiresh.  In Melachim, two of the three sources have the azlah geiresh on the right.  None of these sources has a notation about which note should be read first (but see further down on this).  My version of the ArtScroll Tanach does not have a notation for the double trop in Tzephania.   I vaguely recall, however, that a newer version of that Tanach does state that the gershayim should be pronounced before the telisha gedolah. 

So someone apparently picked up on this. 

As an abstract proposition, I am uncomfortable with the idea of lumping gershayim and azlah gereish together and treating them as the same thing.  To  be sure they are closely related, since  they are all third level mafsikim.  But the fact remains that they are different notes so logic suggests that they serve different functions (though not necessarily for the issue we're discussing). >>>

They do in fact serve the same functions (as the usual mafsik(im) before revia, pashta, zarka and tevir), as indeed also does the azla in kadma v'azla. The only difference is regarding the structure of the word in which they occur, and that of the previous mesharet, if there is one. Namely: If the previous word has kadma (which occurs either if there are at least two meshartim or if there is one mesharet that is not accented on its first letter), then the given trop is azla. Otherwise it's azla-geresh if mil'el, gershayim if mil'ra. For syntactical purposes these trop are identical.

<<<Be that as it may, the ArtScroll version of the Baal HaTurim to Sefer VaYikra (page 1091 n.39) discusses a masoretic note to the double trop in parashas Shemini that does lump these five cases of double notes together as you posit.  ArtScroll states that "the masoretic note concludes with the cryptic statement: And there is a verse that can be used as a mnemonic: "Ki Sichaleh LaSer" (Devarim 26:12).  As I pointed out before, that verse is a distinct exception to the general rule that telisha gedolah precedes gershayim when the two notes are over adjacent words.  A post by Mr. Neeman in another thread cited 32 examples of this pattern in the Torah alone.  As far as I know, Devarim 26:12 may be the only counter example. Artscroll cites Tikkun Sofrim (Dubna) and Masores HaKeriah for the proposition that the mnemonic means that, just as in the phrase in Devarim 26:12, the gershayim and the azlah geiresh are pronounced before the telisha gedolah.  But if the presence of both notes is simply a concession to divergent traditions that have equal validity as Rav Breuer suggests, why depart from the general rule that telisha gedolah precedes gershayim?  Doesn't that departure suggest that something deeper is going on here?  As I understand it, Rav Breuer suggests that this sequential departure is justified by the principle that Tadir has precedence over Lo Tadir, which apparently means that gershayim is found more often in the Torah (or Tanach) than telisha gedolah.  I have no way of knowing how many times each note appears, although my experience tells me that, at least in the Torah, there most likely wouldn't be a dramatic disparity.  But why even look to that global factor instead of focusing on the more pertinent sequential relationship of telisha gedolah and gershayim, where, at least in the Torah, the former almost always has precedence?  Furthermore, I would be very surprised to find out that azlah geiresh appears more often in Tanach than telisha gedolah.  (It certainly doesn't seem to in the Torah.)  If it doesn't, how would Rav Breuer explain the masoretic note I cited above that gives precedence to azlah geiresh?

Edward Perelmuter >>>

Breuer's "Tadir has precedence over Lo Tadir" does not mean instances of azla-geresh or gershayim alone, but -

1) Instances of azla, azla-geresh and gershayim together, since syntactically they are the same trop

2) Not all instances of azla, azla-geresh and gershayim versus telisha-gedola in the entire Tenach, but specifically the cases where they occur in the given syntax, namely before pashta/zarka(/tevir). In such cases the azla/azla-geresh/gershayim group have an overwhelming majority.

As for the question "why depart from the general rule that telisha gedolah precedes gershayim", the would seem to be that you can't extrapolate the rule from when the notes are on two words to when they are on one word. Usually a rule about one trop preceding another is connected with dividing the verse into phrases, but one word cannot be divided in this manner. Additionally, once you accept the hypothesis that the two notes reflect divergent traditions, the usual order should be irrelevant in this case, as each tradition only had one note. Instead it makes sense to give precedence to the trop we would usually expect in that one position, which is what Breuer says.

Shmuel 

[AMK Judaica]

agree with shmuel.
 
just for fun I did run some numbers for all of tanach. assuming I set it up correctly:
geresh/gershayim: 5,903
telisha gedola: 1200
 
by the way Edward, ברוכים הבאים

[yash...@gmail.com]

Thank you for responding.  All of this is very new to me.  I happen to agree with Rabbeinu Bechaya to Bereishis 5:29 that this is a unique note from Sinai that contains extraordinary secrets.  (I've written a couple of articles on these notes that try to discern their hidden meanings.)  But you've certainly made a fine case for Rav Breuer's position. Just to clarify one point:  is it correct to say that Rav Breuer is of the view that all five of these notes should be gershayim/azlah geiresh but, since we have some divergent tradition, we're going to respect that tradition because it's at least plausible?  

Edward Perelmuter  

[yash...@gmail.com]

Ari, I have a few questions for you.

Do you destroy syntatical structure or whatever technical correctness that would be achieved by the presumed correct one note  (whether telisha gedolah or gershayim) by pronouncing two notes?  If yes, and trup is supposed to achieve that result, then why destroy it in the interest of according deference to competing traditions.  There are many cases of different chumashim having different notes--beginning with Deshe on the third day (telisha gedolah or revia) and going all the way to the second to last verse of the Torah Lichol HaOsos (gershayim or kadmah v'azlah).  Presumably these chumashim also reflect divergent traditions.  So why davka in two places would the ultimate decisors punt and say we don't know, when doing so disrupts the technical structure of the verse.  On the other  hand, if pronouncing both notes doesn't disrupt technical structure, then you have no need to posit uncertainty about the correct note--in this situation two notes can be correct.   

What basis is there to say that telisha gedolah can be mixed up with gershayim?  The two notes are not substitutes but rather are complementary, like zarkah and segol.  That's why you have all of the cases where they are juxtaposed on adjacent notes.  Is there any example of a word where one chumash has a telisha gedolah and another has a gershayim?  I'm aware of cases where revia is mixed up with gershayim (Bicha and VaAni in VaYechi) and Kadma V'azlah (the well-known dispute about Katonti in VaYishlach). But given that telisha gedolah and gershayim are complementary notes, mixing them up seems to be as unlikely as mixing up zarkah and segol--which never happens.  If there would be an an appropriate place to have two notes out of doubt it should be Lichol HaOsos--gershayim or kadma v'azlah.  I could see confusion if the symbols are similar (like mercha and tevir).  But at least in our notation, there's no apparent overlap in the respective notations.  Was there such an overlap 1000 years ago?  

What does Rav Breuer say about the rare cases of double mesharsim on a word--kadmah and mercha for UIisamar in Shemini and HaMaachilcha in Ekev.  Are those also cases of doubt about different traditions?

Edward Perelmuter           

On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:13:53 PM UTC-5, AMK Judaica (Ari) wrote:

agree with shmuel.
 
just for fun I did run some numbers for all of tanach. assuming I set it up correctly:
geresh/gershayim: 5,903
telisha gedola: 1200
 

by the way Edward, ������ �����

[Richard]

resumably these chumashim also reflect divergent traditions.  »

This already has been discussed

A Having 2 traditions of what the Masoretes said is completely different than

B. the masoretes saying there are 2 traditions

EG

A
The Rambam and Rashi may differ in a girsa

B the g'mara itself may have a lishna kama and a lishna basra, which indicaates the Talmud preserved the 2.

In case A we don't know the corrext girsa.

In caase B the authorities themselves kept 2 traditions intact.
-----------------------------------------

[yash...@gmail.com]

I find it hard to believe that these are the only two places where the Masorests had two traditions when there are so many places where we have divergent trop.     

[Richard]

I find it hard to believe that these are the only two places where the Masorests had two traditions when there are so many places where we have divergent trop.  »

I don't get your point.

Torah shb'al Peh has many versions

Some before "canonization" some after

For Bavli that was Hasimas Hatalmud
For the Mesorah it was the acceptance of Ben Asher.

EG we have multiple traditions in Shas and multiple girsas about shas

EG there are 3 stories that Michal bas Kushi wore Tefillin.
Did the Hachamim approve?

Bavli - they did NOT disaprove
P'sikta and Yerushalmi they DID disapprove.

Now we have debates about girsa's that Shas had. Rashi made many changes. Most of Rashi's fixes were incorporated by the printers.

We have 3 or 4 versions of Tossafos.
Those in Vilnaa Shas, those in Tosafos R Petetz, Tosafos HaRosh and others.

There are 2 versions of iggeres der Sh'rira Gaon. 2 versions of Avos Der. Nosson

I'm learning Maseches sofrim. Go study it. It's a maze of confusing girsa'os.

So the bottom line is that Ben Asher made the calls we accept. And for the most part he decided what to do, and sometimes he didn't.

I've been told that Ben Asher's competitor Ben Naphtali
Has up to 600 differences with Ben Asher. Everyone considers the Keter as absolute, yet Leningrad has differences.

Rashi's Torah has up to 6 - 7 spelling differences from Today's Torah's scrolls.

Kafich's edition of Mishneh Torah has dozens or hundreds of differences from the Vilna edition.

And R Mordecai Breuer and Wolpoe both conclude that this double note represents a teiku of sorts, that Ben Asher preseved both versions

Sometimes life has ambiguity. Not everything has a neat answer.

An editor of a Siddur told me that he was certain about a certain nussach. A friend with a PhD told me he's seen many manuscripts and that there is no consensus. That's why artscroll has both Geshem and Gashem.

I guess in a few cases Ben Asher paskened to read both tropes. Anyone hear of zecher and zeicher? Is that so unusual?

[yash...@gmail.com]

In my opinion, there is no room for teiku for a decision-maker of last resort in this type of situation.  Chazal certainly didn't adopt that approach when they determined which books belonged in the canon.  So if Ben Asher or whoever set out to establish the authoritative trop, it would have been fundamentally inconsistent with this mission for him not to resolve the issue.  

A more basic question is: just what is the problem with saying that two notes are OK in this situation without having to engage in what appears to be entirely unsupported speculation about extant traditions 1000 years ago  There are dozens of cases where two notes appear on a word--kadma/zakef katan is a common note.  Munach/zakef katan is also common.  There are a couple of cases of kadmah/mercha.  If the problem is that two notes don't fit into some theory of trop structure posited by Wickes and Rav Breuer, who says that their theory is correct in all situations.  Doesn't Rav Breuer himself acknowledge cases where he can't explain the trop?          

[Richard]

In my opinion, there is no room for teiku for a decision-maker of last resort in this type of situation. »

Do you have a source to support this position?

See the davening list on this thread

"B'rachah After the Megillah, is this a Paradigm?'

Modim d'rabban is another case
We have gazillions of competing opinions that get prserved in tandem

Rav Papa paskened 4 here is my post that kicked it off.

The question I have is:
Is Rav Pappa stating a General Rule of how to handle these kinds of situations of competing Nusachos
OR
Is his comment limited to the context of this B'rachah.

Many of us know EG that in Minhag Ashkenaz, competing Nusachos are used, albeit not always during the same occassion.

EG Both Ahavah Rabbah and Ahavas Olam.

מסכת מגילה פרק ג
דף כא,ב גמרא

< לאחריה מאי מברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם <האל> הרב את ריבנו והדן את דיננו והנוקם את נקמתנו והנפרע לנו מצרינו והמשלם גמול לכל אויבי נפשנו ברוך אתה ה' הנפרע לישראל מכל צריהם רבא אמר האל המושיע אמר רב פפא הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו ברוך אתה ה' הנפרע לישראל מכל צריהם האל המושיע:>

[yash...@gmail.com]

Rabbi Wolpoe:

For what it's worth, I just checked my Breurer's tikkun which contains numerous comments about what Rav Breuer felt was the correct trop in a given situation.  There is not a single example in the Torah where the choice is between telisha gedolah and gershayim or azlah geiresh. So that casts even more doubt on the notion that there was uncertainty 1000 years ago about what trop applied to Bereishis 5:29 and VaYikra 10:4.

Edward Perelmuter 

On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:35:03 PM UTC-5, RabbiRi...@gmail.com wrote:

[yash...@gmail.com]

How is reading telisha gedolah and gershayim together being faithful to the alleged divergent traditions?  You are creating an unprecedented mongrel of a note which conforms to neither alleged tradition. If you want to be faithful to both, shouldn't you read the verse first with one note and then the other note?  That's how we do it wherever I've leined parashas Zachor.  If ben Asher truly had equally valid traditions, wouldn't it have made sense for him to establish this scenario?.  

[Richard]

If you want to be faithful to both, shouldn't you read the verse first with one note and then the other note?  That's how we do it wherever I've leined parashas Zachor.  If ben Asher truly had equally valid traditions, wouldn't it have made sense for him to establish this scenario?. »

Why not?

There are at least 3 ways I know to do zecher and zeicher and R Breuer
Says Only Zeicher as to Yekkes and Sephardim.

You seem to be imposing all kinds of shoulds, must etc. That make little or no sense to me

«There is not a single example in the Torah where the choice is between telisha gedolah and gershayim or azlah geiresh»

Or alternatively there is no case where we don't read both. That seems to more closely resemble the facts here.

«ou are creating an unprecedented mongrel of a note »

Hey the not is there for xenturies. In case you didn't realize it, I didn't create

Would you accuse Rav Pappa of creating a mongrel B'rachah?

Is modim derabban a "mongrel"?

לאחריה מאי מברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם <האל> הרב את ריבנו והדן את דיננו והנוקם את נקמתנו והנפרע לנו מצרינו והמשלם גמול לכל אויבי נפשנו ברוך אתה ה' הנפרע לישראל מכל צריהם רבא אמר האל המושיע אמר רב פפא הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו ברוך אתה ה' הנפרע לישראל מכל צריהם האל המושיע

All R Breuer and Wolpoe are doing is applying

"אמר רב פפא הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו"

To this case as if it were competing traditions as above. I don't get your problem.

We have diagonal mezuzahs and diagonal beemahs to accommodate competing sheetos. Most torahs afaik are written to comply with the Rambam and the Rosh.

This approach is positively ubiquitous!

[Richard]

Here we have a traditional text preserving competing traditions
Yadayim 3:6

ג,ו  רבי יהודה אומר, שיר השירים, מטמא את הידיים; וקוהלת, מחלוקת. 

רבי יוסי אומר, קוהלת, אינה מטמא את הידיים; ושיר השירים, מחלוקת.
 
רבי שמעון אומר, קוהלת--מקולי בית שמאי, ומחומרי בית הלל. 

------
אמר רבי שמעון בן עזאי, מקובל אני מפי שבעים ושניים זקנים, ביום שהושיבו את רבי אלעזר בן עזריה בישיבה, ששיר השירים וקוהלת מטמאין את הידיים. 

אמר רבי עקיבה, חס ושלום:  לא נחלק אדם מישראל בשיר השירים שלא תטמא את הידיים, שאין העולם כולו כדאי ביום שניתנה בו שיר השירים לישראל--שכל הכתובים קודש, ושיר השירים קודש קודשים; ואם נחלקו, לא נחלקו אלא על קוהלת.
 
אמר רבי יוחנן בן ישוע בן חמיו של רבי עקיבה, כדברי בן עזאי, כן נחלקו וכן גמרו.

I don't see a concensus here as to how Tanach got fixed as late the generation before Rebbe

Oddly enough the Mishnah starts with a later generation of tanaim and then moves back to the Yavneh generation. Maybe ein mukdam um'uchar bamishnah!

[Richard]

I find it hard to believe that these are the only two places where the Masorests had two traditions when there are so many places where we have divergent trop.  »

Maybe most cases were resolvable

The US constitutional convention could not resolve slavery so they deferred it or punted it.

I don't know if this is the ONLY case

I suggested that
EG Orech y'riah achas has 2 different notes, one in vayakheil and 1 in T'rumah.

I also suggested that echod and ho'echod might be such a case, then someone got nervous about that one.

We have c'ruv echad with a makaf mahpach and with a kadma mahpach.

I never thought about it but there may be more.

We have Yaakov Malei and Haseir
We have Eliyahu and Eliyah.
We have Yonosson and Yehonosson
Yosef and Yehoseif.
Tomim with and without an aleph

Any one of these might possibly indicate an ambiguity, or maybe they don't. We certainly have prserved competing versions, just not in the very same location. So that may make these unique, I don't know

R Soloveichik said zecher and zeicher in Psalm 145 every time.

Most do it twice only for Parshas Zachor due to the M"B's concern for a safeik d'oraisso. But others do it otherwise.

R Abahu prserved Three traditions of T'ruah
The Sh'varim
The T'ruah
And
The Sh'varim T'ruah.

He wanted one standard changing a minimum of 9 notes into 30.

Why shouldn't Ben Asher do it, too?

[Richard]

Sephardim say ahavas olam twice

Ashkenazim split it between ahava rabbah and ahavas olam in order to preserve the 2 versions

Same for Shalom Rav and Sim Shalom

Also multiple traditions for
Atah Kadosh vs. L'dor vador
Hamvoreich es amo ... Bashalom
Vs.
Oseh Hashalom

We say lehevi boteil v'hefker k'afra d'ara to cover 2 opinions re: Bittul, one that we declare it useless the other that we declare it ownerless.

[Richard]

Ashkenazim say 2 b'rachos on Tefillin. Following the Rosh, But in order to play it safe, we say baruch shem k'vod after the 2nd b'rochoh, just in case.

The Mishnah B'rurah recommends putting t'fillin on chol hamoed with a t'nai, just in case the zohar is correct and it's assur to do so.

So the M"B follows 2 mutually exclusive traditions re: t'fillin on Hol Hamo'ed.

We place a 5th cup at the seder to cover another sheetah. We just don't drink it.

We live in a halachic universe that puts a lot of energy to preserve many traditions, some competing and some times even mutually exlcusive!

[Richard]

The M'chabbeir recommends wearing both Rashi and Rabbenu TAm tefillin at the same time, prbably so that the b'rachah covers them both

I don't know anyone who does this, but it's a neat idea.

[Richard]

While the word m'shukadim has a metigah, aiui the Gemara itself is not sure if it belongs to the phrase before or the phrase after.

It seems that the esnachta trumps and that m'shukadim belongs in the 2nd half of the passuk.

If that is true, it is one of several cases where the Masoretic text disputes the Talmud.

If that is NOT the case, then this neginah is prserving the ambiguity of the phrasing of m'shukadim.

The Kol Korei bamidbar phrase in the hafarah of nachamu is somewhat ambiguous because the ZK and the ZG are equal mafsikim, as such bamidbar could go either way, though the simple understanding of couplet suggests banidbar goes with panu as does yashru with aravah.

[Shmuel Rabin]

The difference is that we by reading both versions are not "establishing" a fixed text - obviously only one version can be correct, just we don't know which one. So we can't mix them up. The Masoretes however were the ones who established the text, and if they decided to use both notes then what they say goes, and they have the authority for that. Once they say that it's no longer a question, both notes need to be preserved.

I explained earlier what the doubt of gershayim vs. telisha gedolah is. Azla/azla-geresh/gershayim is the usual note before mahpach pashta, but occasionally telisha gedola comes instead. There are 17 such cases in Torah:

Bereishis 19:8

Shmos 9:24

Shmos 12:27

Vayikra 10:16

Vayikra 13:34

Vayikra 13:51

Vayikra 13:57

Vayikra 14:48

Bamidbar 4:7

Bamidbar 9:7

Bamidbar 13:29

Bamidbar 26:62

Devarim 2:5

Devarim 6:15

Devarim 9:6

Devarim 14:29

Devarim 28:20

while even azla-geresh has about twice that, and azla and gershayim many more. So that's why there are two options, and why geresh/gershayim takes precedence.

Note that these two options are different than other trop that sometimes get conflated, such as azla-geresh vs. revia in katonti. In most cases a different trop would result in a different parsing of the phrase, thus:

revia - katonti | mikol hachasadim umikol-haemet

azla-geresh - katonti mikol hachasadim | umikol-haemet

Thus it's understood that it's impossible to read both traditions at once, as they contradict each other. The Masoretes would probably never have any doubt regarding such verses, as they would have known how to parse the verse.

In the case of gershayim vs. telisha gedolah however, there is no difference regarding the verse parsing, as both notes are on the same level. So both can be sung without creating a contradiction.

But at the end of the day it is speculation as you say. You certainly don't have to accept it.

You seem to hold there is some deeper meaning to the two notes. But that and Breuer's hypothesis are not necessarily mutually exclusive. On the contrary, it may have been this very deeper meaning that made the Masoretes loath to let go of one of the notes.

Shmuel

--

[Shmuel Rabin]

<<The Kol Korei bamidbar phrase in the hafarah of nachamu is somewhat ambiguous because the ZK and the ZG are equal mafsikim, as such bamidbar could go either way, though the simple understanding of couplet suggests banidbar goes with panu as does yashru with aravah.>>

Not exactly. When two equal mafsikim occur in sequence the first usually has a greater pause, so the trop actually agree with "the simple understanding of couplet" that bamidbar goes with panu.

Shmuel

-----------------------------------------
Shalom and Best Regards,
RRW

MISTAKES are always forgivable
If you have the courage to admit them.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[yash...@gmail.com]

It's not just me who says there are deeper meanings to these notes.  Rabbeinu Bechaya, a great rishon emphasizes this in Bereishis 5:29.  I certainly have no problem saying that there is a general musical structure to the trop; that is part of the chachmah of the Torah.  But I question the proposition that only one of these notes "must" be correct; certainly Rabbenu Bechaya would take issue with that.  That means that we have hard and fast technical rules that apply in every situation.  How many times does Rav Breuer admit that he can't explain a trop?  How do you explain unusual trop like yerech ben yomo and karnei phara that appear only once?  Is it plausible to say that those are the only two places in the entire Torah where they can appear even though the former is like a munach and the latter contains pazer within it?  How do you explain the numerous words containing two notes kadmah and zakef katan or munach and zakef katan one of which is a meshares and the other is a strong mafsik?  How do you explain the two cases of kadmah and mercha I cited before--are they also cases of Massoretic doubt?  How do you explain Devarim 26:12--the one case in the entire Torah where gershayim precedes telisha gedolah?     

We certainly don't have hard and fast inexorable rules that apply in other aspects related to the text of the Torah.  If we did, we wouldn't have things like isolated large and small letters, letters with unusual shapes (vav ketiyah, ayin akuma, peh kephula), letters with unusual tagin, unusual deviations in spelling (in the passage of the wife accused of adultery in Ki Teze (Devarim 22:13-19), naara is repeatedly spelled defectively with one exception--the last time after she has been vindicated).  Why should trop be any different?

Sorry for all of  these questions. I  very  much  appreciate you enlightening me about this aspect of Torah with which I was not familiar.  

Edward Perelmuter 

[Richard]

-----------------------------------------

Shalom and Best Regards,
RRW

MISTAKES are always forgivable
If you have the courage to admit them.

---

From: yash...@gmail.com

Sender: lei...@googlegroups.com

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:38:30 -0800 (PST)

To: <lei...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: lei...@googlegroups.com

Cc: Shmuel Rabin<baal...@yahoo.co.uk>

Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

[Shmuel Rabin]

You raise good points. But bear in mind again that no one is saying that only one of the notes is correct. The Masoretes established to read them both, for whatever reason, and no one has any right to imagine that we can make do with only one. 

It is true there are many cases where more than one trop would be acceptable according to the rules, but I don't see why that should disturb Breuer's hypothesis. The five cases of geresh/gershayim-telisha gedola are an exception no matter which way you look at it, whether you say they're a result of differing traditions or some deeper meaning. Either way it's not usual to have two trop on one syllable in this manner. Indeed, the search for a deeper meaning only came about because of the fact that this is an exception! So while of course there is merit to finding a deeper meaning, it is still not out of place to propose a more simple explanation. Especially since Rabbeinu Bachaye only addresses one case of the five.

The "words containing two notes kadmah and zakef katan or munach and zakef katan" are not exceptions, they are determined by rules and serve a musical function. Even the two cases of kadmah and mercha, while they are exceptional in appearing on the same word, serve the same purpose as though they would appear in two words (as they do for example in Shmos 36:6), so there's no question of doubt - both notes are needed, and the sequence of notes would be disturbed without one of them. The five cases of geresh/gershayim-telisha gedola however stand out in that 1) both notes are mafsikim, 2) they appear in the same syllable, which does not appear anywhere else. Since one note or the other is precisely what we would expect in this sequence, Breuer's hypohesis is not so far-fetched.

Shmuel

[AMK Judaica]

EDWARD:

 
"How many times does Rav Breuer admit that he can't explain a trop?"
 

not too often. and generally not with an entire class.

 
"How do you explain unusual trop like yerech ben yomo and karnei phara that appear only once?"
 

1) well karnei para is the one class (I think) he admits he can't explain. but note that even here it isn't completely enigmatic. they are temurot for pazer (and hence KP is aka pazer gadol and our pazer is aka pazer katan). they don't just appear randomly (or for some deeper meaning) anywhere in a pasuk, but just instead of a pazer. he can't explain why KP comes where it does, but he can explain 99.999% of the places where it does not come. YBY on the other hand is easy to explain. it is the final mesharet of KP.
 
 2) YBY-KP appear more than once through tanach

 
"How do you explain the numerous words containing two notes kadmah and zakef katan or munach and zakef katan one of which is a meshares and the other is a strong mafsik? "
 

in 99.999% of the time, words with 2 trops are easily explainable and predictable according to well defined patterns. most often the 2nd trop is instead of a meteg in very specific situations (the only question, being discussed elsewhere, is whether the mayla substitutes or nullifies the meteg). there a couple of two-trop combos he doesn't explain and one (mahpach/pashta) which I'm not sure is convincing (his explanation is these are compound words, which may? explain all these instances, but not universally applied?)

 
"How do you explain the two cases of kadmah and mercha I cited before--are they also cases of Massoretic doubt?"
 

no Masoretic doubt. it is in place of a meteg following very specific rules (unfortunately beyond my recall ability, but they are laid out in the usual places)

---

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:38:30 -0800

From: yash...@gmail.com
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
CC: baal...@yahoo.co.uk

Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

[AMK Judaica]

Shmuel:

 
"When two equal mafsikim occur in sequence the first usually has a greater pause"
 

except with the shelishim, no?

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

---

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:51:53 +0000
From: baal...@yahoo.co.uk

Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

To: lei...@googlegroups.com

<<The Kol Korei bamidbar phrase in the hafarah of nachamu is somewhat ambiguous because the ZK and the ZG are equal mafsikim, as such bamidbar could go either way, though the simple understanding of couplet suggests banidbar goes with panu as does yashru with aravah.>>

Not exactly. , so the trop actually agree with "the simple understanding of couplet" that bamidbar goes with panu.

Shmuel

-----------------------------------------
Shalom and Best Regards,
RRW

MISTAKES are always forgivable
If you have the courage to admit them.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.

[AMK Judaica]

EDWARD,
 
fyi, if you are referring to the chorev tikkun, that section was not actually composed by r.  breuer.

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

---

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:43:20 -0800
From: yash...@gmail.com
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
CC: yash...@gmail.com; rabbi.ri...@gmail.com

Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

[Shmuel Rabin]

I didn't want to get into that, but yes, it doesn't always apply with shalishim, although there are many cases when it applies there too, including all sequences of geresh (in all its manifestations) and legarmeh or geresh followed by telisha gedola.

[AMK Judaica]

Edward:
 
this is certainly not the only place where the masoretes were presented with two traditions.

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

---

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:06:30 -0800
From: yash...@gmail.com
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
CC: rabbi.ri...@gmail.com

Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

[AMK Judaica]

RRW:

regarding you examples of diverging traditions in the siddur, I'm a lot more comfortable with this than in tanach. e.g., you mentioned geshe, vs. gashem (have you heard leiman's lecture on this? if not you must). these things don't bother/excite me as much as issues pertaining to kitve kodesh.
 
EDWARD:

 
"the one case in the entire Torah where gershayim precedes telisha gedolah"
 

it's not the only case, taking into account geresh = gershayim. it's been explained that syntactically they are 100% identical and the choice of one or the other is dependent on phonology and adjacent word. the Masoretic note you cited considers them the same. I would also add that in Babylonian trop there was no differentiation between the two. (similarly for another temura, the zakefs, Babylonian trop also knows only of one undifferentiated zakef. and I can't find it now, but I think I saw last night a Masoretic note for zakef that includes katan/gadol together, paralleling your geresh note)
 
anyway, wickes says this transposition takes place when it is in a pashta clause, but this doesn't seem to be true according to a fuller list presented by r. breuer.
 
(by the way, you didn't mention the rare merkha kefula, but that too is explainable.)
 
in the interest of disclosure, I see now that in a few places wickes conjectures that certain unexplainable phenomenon are the results of a desire to add meaning to a word. I also recall an article in JQR in which the author argues that the special trop reflect this desire. I was surpised to see the article there, i'll try to find it again.

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

---

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:38:30 -0800
From: yash...@gmail.com
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
CC: baal...@yahoo.co.uk

Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

[Richard]

Edward:
 
this is certainly not the only place where the masoretes were presented with two traditions.

**********

Ari Kinsberg»

Also, it might have been one of the few places they had no way to be machri'a. IOW

Let's say they had 100 cases. In 97 they had a preponderence of evidence [I am NOT a lawyer but my wife is!] While in these cases it was simply too close to call.

I suspect that with "orech hayriah ho'achas", that they were able to accomomdate 2 methods or systems by cutting the baby in half.

Via munach l'garmei in T'rumah
And
Via Azla geiresh in Vayakheil.

I don't know this for a fact, just that it seems to resemble compromises like sim shalom and shalom rav.
-----------------------------------------

[Richard]

AK:

"I'm a lot more comfortable with this than in tanach"

Look we have two living traditions re: Merchavyah, Psalm 118

Baer following the Talmud and a single manuscript [ms.] Inisists one one word resmbling shalvhevesyah

Most Masoretes insists on 2 words.

Since this involves the Sheim Hashem, one would suspect it had a lot of thought behind it. Yet the vast majority follow 2 words which seems to contradict an explicit Bavli.

We don't follow the Bavli on k'dorla'omer [lech lecha] as 2 words either. And that's in Humash,

My Rav told me that Rashi diverges from our Humash in 6-7 places - EG hanichov.

I don't know how feelings get in the way of facts.

We afre witnesses that zecher became a new norm for reading Zachor only during the last 250 years or so. I'm not saying a new opinion. I'm saying a new norm.

[Richard]

Either way it's not usual to have two trop on one syllable in this manner. Indeed, the search for a deeper meaning only came about because of the fact that this is an exception!»

In my own life I have expereinced deep spiritual explanations post facto, long after the triggering events. BE"H I will share one from yesterday.

[AMK Judaica]

RRW:
 
on the preference for Masoretic text contra the gemara: http://www.leimanlibrary.com/texts_of_publications/74.%20Masorah%20and%20Halakhah%20A%20Study%20in%20Conflict.pdf

how do you distinguish between a tradition and an error?

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

> Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

> To: lei...@googlegroups.com
> From: rabbiri...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:38:59 +0000

[Richard]

how do you distinguish between a tradition and an error?»

Too vast a subject for a quick answer

Sometimes "T'vias Ayin" is a factor. It was t'vias ayin that led me to believe that 2 competing traditions triggered the double note on Zeh/Kir'vu. And I said, it's only a guess.

EG the Bet Yosef explicitly states that fish with milk is not allowed.

This p'sak is completely absent from the shulchan Aruch

Rema in Darchei Mosheh and Taz claim it's a Ta'us and simply dismiss it

S'phardim follow it, but with some kinds of limitations

EG Butter is OK with fish, and maybe cheese, but not milk itself.

I certainly believe in my heart that Zecher is unnecessary at all times, but I'm willing to concede the narrow case of Parshas Zachor as a special case because it is d'oraisso.

Spreading that to Ki Seitzei seems to me ridiculous, yet soon it may become accepted widely.

R Mosheh Feinstein specifically exmpted peanuts from the G'zeirah of kitniyyos. When I was a kid, peanut oil, [s'feik mei kitniyyos] was considered exempt without a doubt for most.

When I was a kid large ashkenazi congregations all wore T'fillin on Hol Hamoed, and no one said Hoshanos after Hallel. No one pointed with their pinkies at Hagbah. So all that has changed.

When I was a kid - Mussaf k'dushah had Ani Hashem Elokeichem as a Tzibbur response - as per Birnbaum. That is no longer the case in most places.

Israel, R Soloveichik, and other factors have influenced many changes.

[Shmuel Rabin]

I prefer to think of the azla geresh in orech hairiah haachas of Vayakhel being there for emphasis. I.e. to show the transition from theory to practice. There is a Masoretic note on this: "D'pakid yasiv ud'avid kaeim" (the one who commands sits (=munach, under the letter) while the one who carries it out stands (=geresh, above the letter)".

Note that there are 8 occurences of azla-geresh in Vayakhel, the most in any parsha in the Torah.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Richard]

I prefer to think of the azla geresh in orech hairiah haachas of Vayakhel being there for emphasis. I.e. to show the transition from theory to practice. There is a Masoretic note on this: "D'pakid yasiv ud'avid kaeim" (the one who commands sits (=munach, under the letter) while the one who carries it out stands (=geresh, above the letter)".

Note that there are 8 occurences of azla-geresh in Vayakhel, the most in any parsha in the Torah.»

This does not contradice what I suspect.

EG both notes might have worked on both places. The Machri'a factor to be the azla geirish in vayakheil as opposed to in T'rumah might exactly be the reason you furnished. IOW, given an inherent ambiguity, your reason was the Machri'a.

Or perhaps there was never an ambiguity. I'm not certain. I am convinced that the reason above dovetails well with my point. Just like the zohar was machri'a for the BY re: t'fillin, and the Minhog for the Rema.

[Shmuel Rabin]

The reason why a double reading spread to Ki Teitzei, and even the double reading in Parshas Zachor (now that we know zeicher is correct), is probably not because of any doubt, but in order to alleviate any claims of "my Chumash has it different" etc., "shelo tehei Torah kishtei Toros". Once you institute such a thing for Zachor, it's not a big stretch to do so for Ki Teitzei as well, as otherwise the same questions will arise.

[Richard]

Once you institute such a thing for Zachor, it's not a big stretch to do so for Ki Teitzei as well, as otherwise the same questions will arise.»

I think it's a big deal to change the established practice

And what would have hurt had it been read one way for sh'vii and the other for Maftir?

And since when are we so makpid for tzeirei segol ambiguities. There are a handful iirc.

IIRC EG vashfeih vs. Yashfeh.

[Shmuel Rabin]

Again, yashfei vs. yashfe is irrelevant. We would not usually repeat but for the fact that we sometimes do so for this very verse.

Shmuel

[Richard]

Again, yashfei vs. yashfe is irrelevant. We would not usually repeat but for the fact that we sometimes do so for this very verse.

Shmuel»

Nani'ach Zachor - bu mimah nafshach - why repeat during ki seitzei

[Richard]

Nani'ach Zachor - but mimah nafshach - why repeat during ki seitzei

Furthermore why repeat twice in Ki seitzei? Why not read it one way for sh'vii and the other for maftir?

[Richard]

We would not usually repeat but for the fact that we sometimes do so for this very verse»

I just don't get it. The context of Zachor is a d'oraisso. Why should that spread to an ordinary reading.

And even if does, why not as I suggested do 1 in sh'vii and the other during maftir, without having to read an entire passuk twice etc.?

And why should we listen to R Breuer regarding Esther and not re: Zachor? And if we ignore him re: Achor because of the M"B why not accept him re: kee seitzei?

Frankly, I don't follow any of this.

[yash...@gmail.com]

Rabbi Wolpoe:

Respectfully, I do not believe that your example of zeicher/zehcher supports the proposition of accommodating competing transactions of telisha gedola.  On the contrary, I think it highlights the difficulty with that proposition.  Combining those two notes on one word is tantamount to reading an elongated word for Amalek--either zeizehcher or zehzeicher.  No one does that, and no one would do that because it does not reflect either tradition, much less both of them.   It is tantamount to mixing two colours to create a third color and then saying it has elements of both.  The same observation can be made about combining two notes--you are creating an unprecedented note that listeners would not recognize.   Nor do I find references to competing minhagim or nuschaos apposite to this issue--establishing the proper text and way to read the text.  We don't tell an Askenzic sofer that it's OK to write dakah in phitzua  daka the way a Sephardic sofer would write it, and the same holds true for a Sephardic sofer. And even when it comes to tefillah, we do not permit deviations when reading passages from Tanach or even much of Shmoneh Esrei. 

I also believe that the notion of allowing divergent traditions to persist would be fundamentally incompatible with the task of the Massorites--standardizing the text.  The very purpose of standardization requires elimination of previously conflicting views.  Indeed, allowing such conflicts to persist even in the guise of accommodation would call into question the validity of the entire enterprise--if the decision maker admits that he doesn't know which trop is correct in Bereishis 5:29, why should I trust that he knows how to resolve the hundreds of other conflicts that the Massorites were confronted with?  

I would be a lot more comfortable with the accommodation view if there was some textual support for the notion of a single trop--either telisha gedolah or gershayim. But apparently there is none. Indeed, Rishonim from both the Ashkenazic tradition (the Baal HaTurim) and the Sephardic tradition (Rabbeinu Bechaya) were sure  enough about the double trop to comment about it.

Edward Perelmuter

   

On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:33:51 PM UTC-5, RabbiRi...@gmail.com wrote:

If you want to be faithful to both, shouldn't you read the verse first with one note and then the other note?  That's how we do it wherever I've leined parashas Zachor.  If ben Asher truly had equally valid traditions, wouldn't it have made sense for him to establish this scenario?. »

Why not?

There are at least 3 ways I know to do zecher and zeicher and R Breuer
Says Only Zeicher as to Yekkes and Sephardim.

You seem to be imposing all kinds of shoulds, must etc. That make little or no sense to me

«There is not a single example in the Torah where the choice is between telisha gedolah and gershayim or azlah geiresh»

Or alternatively there is no case where we don't read both.  That seems to more closely resemble the facts here.

«ou are creating an unprecedented mongrel of a note »

Hey the not is there for xenturies. In case you didn't realize it, I didn't create

Would you accuse Rav Pappa of creating a mongrel B'rachah?

Is modim derabban a "mongrel"?

 לאחריה מאי מברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם <האל> הרב את ריבנו והדן את דיננו והנוקם את נקמתנו והנפרע לנו מצרינו והמשלם גמול לכל אויבי נפשנו ברוך אתה ה' הנפרע לישראל מכל צריהם רבא אמר האל המושיע אמר רב פפא הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו ברוך אתה ה' הנפרע לישראל מכל צריהם האל המושיע

All R Breuer and Wolpoe are doing is applying

"אמר רב פפא הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו"

To this case as if it were competing traditions as above. I don't get your problem.

We have diagonal mezuzahs and diagonal beemahs to accommodate competing sheetos.  Most torahs afaik are written to comply with the Rambam and the Rosh.

This approach is positively ubiquitous!

[Richard]

Rabbi Wolpoe:

Respectfully, I do not believe that your example of zeicher/zehcher supports the proposition of accommodating competing transactions of telisha gedola.»

Do you think you can just let this go already?

[yash...@gmail.com]

Shmuel, I agree that as a practical matter, at this point it makes no difference what motivated the Masoretes.  Be that as it may, Rav Breuer apparently felt the need to search for an explanation.  As I wrote immediately above to Rabbi Wolpoe, I believe that the notion of maintaining equally valid competing trop is problematic for two reasons: (1) sounding two notes to create an unprecedented elongated note that would be foreign to all but the most sophisticated listener is not truly being faithful to both traditions but rather is tantamount to reading zeizechher or zehzeicher Amalek; and (2) allowing such divergence to persist, even under the guise of accommodating respectable competing traditions, would be incompatible with the point of the whole endeavor--standardizing the text--and would call into question the validity of the whole enterprise.

Edward Perelmuter   

[Richard]

 We don't tell an Askenzic sofer that it's OK to write dakah in phitzua  daka the way a Sephardic sofer would write it, and the same holds true for a Sephardic sofer. And even when it comes to tefillah, we do not permit deviations when reading passages from Tanach or even much of Shmoneh Esrei. »

Do we tell sofrim to comply with both Rambam and Rosh?

-----------------------------------------
Shalom and Best Regards,
RRW

MISTAKES are always forgivable
If you have the courage to admit them.

---

From: yash...@gmail.com

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:12:57 -0800 (PST)

To: <lei...@googlegroups.com>

Cc: <yash...@gmail.com>; <rabbi.ri...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

[Richard]

I also believe that the notion of allowing divergent traditions to persist would be fundamentally incompatible with the task of the Massorites--standardizing the text. \


They did standardize. Just as the g'mara preserved multiples.

You are mamash arguing with Rav Pappa below. Why?

לאחריה מאי מברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם <האל> הרב את ריבנו והדן את דיננו והנוקם את נקמתנו והנפרע לנו מצרינו והמשלם גמול לכל אויבי נפשנו ברוך אתה ה' הנפרע לישראל מכל צריהם רבא אמר האל המושיע אמר רב פפא הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו ברוך אתה ה' הנפרע לישראל מכל צריהם האל המושיע

Rav Pappa canonized two dei'os!

Enough already.

[Richard]

Combining those two notes on one word is»

What the Masoretes said to do.
We don't know for sure what the underlying rationale is.

We simply do what we can to find the best reason we can to make sense out of it.

[Richard]

My sheetah is largely based upon having 2 existing traditions in tandem.

If one looks at kaf hachaim and ben ish chai on wearing tefillin on hol hamoed, they respect both sides because there exist -
1. Sources for both sides
2. Living traditions for both sides.

So I consider that important to leaving an issue open.

If there is a reason to be machri'a, then the dynamic may change.

[Shmuel Rabin]

The Masoretes did not preserve the conflict by recording both taamim. They harmonized them, saying they should both be read, and that was their way of standardizing the text for these instances. A compromise does not always imply weakness, it can be a sign of strength and wisdom if used correctly.

From then on that became the standard text, so there is no reason why there should be evidence to any other version.  

--

[Richard]

Reb Sh'muel
«The Masoretes did not preserve the conflict by recording both taamim. They harmonized them, saying they should both be read, and that was their way of standardizing the text for these instances. A compromise does not always imply weakness, it can be a sign of strength and wisdom if used correctly.»

This Works OK for me

My preferences is along these lines which is based MORE [instead of less] on the Talmud
The Masoretes found 2 Traditions, versions, opinions, etc.

Since their was no definitive dispositve machri'a they punted to "TEIKU" which Artscroll translates as
Let it Stand.

What could be machri'a?
I'm glad you asked, EG:
Rules
Weight of Evidence
How widely accepted each version was.

So L'maaseh they followed Rav Pappa,

לאחריה מאי מברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם <האל> הרב את ריבנו והדן את דיננו והנוקם את נקמתנו והנפרע לנו מצרינו והמשלם גמול לכל אויבי נפשנו ברוך אתה ה' הנפרע לישראל מכל צריהם רבא אמר האל המושיע אמר רב פפא הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו ברוך אתה ה' הנפרע לישראל מכל צריהם האל המושיע

And so just as Rav Pappa canonized two Dei'os, the Masoretes preserved 2 Neginos.

I don't know this for a fact, it simply resembles a pattern I've detected within the Talmud.

The fact that this phenomenon is rare in Tanach, goes to show
A. How thorough the Masoretes were
B. How much smaller Tanach is as compared to the Talmud Bavli

I also feel "offended" by the term "mongrel" which sounds like a perjorative. I would say "hybrid" instead.

Story going back to about 1980:

I was once castigated in a shul for describing their Minyan as a Mongrel. I asked for a better alternative term, because, after all, I really meant no offense. The fellow suggested "Mottley" as less perjorative.

Bottom line -
A. We have the 2 notes
B. I strongly suspect that the Masoretes ruled like R Pappa to include both
C. Because it could go either way and there was no machri'a

Or as Reb Sh'muel suggested, a harmony of notes, which I also found a valid approach.
-----------------------------------------

[Richard]

I have no issue with R B'chayai saying whatever he said al pee nistar.

My take is that the Nistar and Nigleh work in parallel, and that one perspective does not always preclude the other.

Nistar may be understood to be in the dimension of Spirit while Nigleh may be seen as on the material plane.
[How the material girl got into Kabbalah is a matter for another thread.]

To me, bringing R Bechayai's point al pee nistar to "upshlug" a historical point is crossing a boundary of sorts.

EG.
Titus destroyed the Beis haMikdash

From a historical perspective it was to emphatically put down the Judean rebellion.

From a spiritual perspective Hashem willed it to punish the Jews at that time for lapses in Observance, or whatever.

I don't see these contrasting perspectives as in conflict.

[AMK Judaica]

until the parsha breaks (I refer to formatting for petuhot/setumot) assumed the layout we have today, which according to most views satisfies both the rambam and the rosh, was there any preference (by era and/or region) for one or the other?
 
kol tuv,
ari

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

 

Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word

To: yash...@gmail.com; lei...@googlegroups.com
From: rabbiri...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 02:37:39 +0000

[Richard]

until the parsha breaks (I refer to formatting for petuhot/setumot) assumed the layout we have today, which according to most views satisfies both the rambam and the rosh, was there any preference (by era and/or region) for one or the other?
 
kol tuv,

ari»

I for one do not know.

-----------------------------------------
Shalom and Best Regards,
RRW

Pathos, not reason, is more and more accepted as the way to live a normal life.

~ Steve M.

---

From: AMK Judaica <amkju...@hotmail.com>

Sender: lei...@googlegroups.com

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 02:16:11 -0400

To: lei...@googlegroups.com<lei...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: lei...@googlegroups.com

Subject: [leining] rambam/rosh parshiyot

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Avram Herzog]

Rav Richard wrote: "I for one do not know". I'll only add that "I for two do not know". (The good news for me is that he has "not known" for longer than I have "not known", as he is a few years older)! :-)


Avi H

On 03/19/14, Richard wrote:




until the parsha breaks (I refer to formatting for petuhot/setumot) assumed the layout we have today, which according to most views satisfies both the rambam and the rosh, was there any preference (by era and/or region) for one or the other?

kol tuv,
ari»

I for one do not know.

-----------------------------------------
Shalom and Best Regards,
RRW

Pathos, not reason, is more and more accepted as the way to live a normal life.

~ Steve M.

From: AMK Judaica <amkju...@hotmail.com>

Sender: lei...@googlegroups.com

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 02:16:11 -0400
To: lei...@googlegroups.com<lei...@googlegroups.com>
ReplyTo: lei...@googlegroups.com

Subject: [leining] rambam/rosh parshiyot


until the parsha breaks (I refer to formatting for petuhot/setumot) assumed the layout we have today, which according to most views satisfies both the rambam and the rosh, was there any preference (by era and/or region) for one or the other?

kol tuv,
ari

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word
To: yash...@gmail.com; lei...@googlegroups.com
From: rabbiri...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 02:37:39 +0000

We don't tell an Askenzic sofer that it's OK to write dakah in phitzua daka the way a Sephardic sofer would write it, and the same holds true for a Sephardic sofer. And even when it comes to tefillah, we do not permit deviations when reading passages from Tanach or even much of Shmoneh Esrei. »

Do we tell sofrim to comply with both Rambam and Rosh?
-----------------------------------------
Shalom and Best Regards,
RRW

MISTAKES are always forgivable
If you have the courage to admit them.

From: yash...@gmail.com

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:12:57 -0800 (PST)
To: <lei...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: <yash...@gmail.com>; <rabbi.ri...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Syntax: Two pausal tropes on one word


Rabbi Wolpoe:


Respectfully, I do not believe that your example of zeicher/zehcher supports the proposition of accommodating competing transactions of telisha gedola. On the contrary, I think it highlights the difficulty with that proposition. Combining those two notes on one word is tantamount to reading an elongated word for Amalek--either zeizehcher or zehzeicher. No one does that, and no one would do that because it does not reflect either tradition, much less both of them. It is tantamount to mixing two colours to create a third color and then saying it has elements of both. The same observation can be made about combining two notes--you are creating an unprecedented note that listeners would not recognize. Nor do I find references to competing minhagim or nuschaos apposite to this issue--establishing the proper text and way to read the text. We don't tell an Askenzic sofer that it's OK to write dakah in phitzua daka the way a Sephardic sofer would write it, and the same holds true for a Sephardic sofer. And even when it comes to tefillah, we do not permit deviations when reading passages from Tanach or even much of Shmoneh Esrei.


I also believe that the notion of allowing divergent traditions to persist would be fundamentally incompatible with the task of the Massorites--standardizing the text. The very purpose of standardization requires elimination of previously conflicting views. Indeed, allowing such conflicts to persist even in the guise of accommodation would call into question the validity of the entire enterprise--if the decision maker admits that he doesn't know which trop is correct in Bereishis 5:29, why should I trust that he knows how to resolve the hundreds of other conflicts that the Massorites were confronted with?


I would be a lot more comfortable with the accommodation view if there was some textual support for the notion of a single trop--either telisha gedolah or gershayim. But apparently there is none. Indeed, Rishonim from both the Ashkenazic tradition (the Baal HaTurim) and the Sephardic tradition (Rabbeinu Bechaya) were sure enough about the double trop to comment about it.


Edward Perelmuter






On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:33:51 PM UTC-5, RabbiRi...@gmail.com wrote:


If you want to be faithful to both, shouldn't you read the verse first with one note and then the other note? That's how we do it wherever I've leined parashas Zachor. If ben Asher truly had equally valid traditions, wouldn't it have made sense for him to establish this scenario?. »



Why not?



There are at least 3 ways I know to do zecher and zeicher and R Breuer

Says Only Zeicher as to Yekkes and Sephardim.



You seem to be imposing all kinds of shoulds, must etc. That make little or no sense to me



«There is not a single example in the Torah where the choice is between telisha gedolah and gershayim or azlah geiresh»



Or alternatively there is no case where we don't read both. That seems to more closely resemble the facts here.



«ou are creating an unprecedented mongrel of a note »



Hey the not is there for xenturies. In case you didn't realize it, I didn't create



Would you accuse Rav Pappa of creating a mongrel B'rachah?



Is modim derabban a "mongrel"?

?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?' ?????? ??? ????? <???> ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?' ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ???????? ???? ??? ?' ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??????

All R Breuer and Wolpoe are doing is applying

"??? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ????????"