Zeicher, Zecher, and the Masoretic texg

[Richard]

Shmuel Rabin:
«The Masoretes however were the ones who established the text,»

I'm OK with that.

So what Masoretic evidence is there for "Zecher" with 2 segols? EG I once looked at a Concordance and the only Zecher found was a proper name.

Assuiming that the Masoretes were the last word, then how can we introduce a safeik that they never had? Or did they indeed express such a safeik?

As may of us know, R Breuer insisted that ONLY Zeicher is correct, one of those few times that he invoked a Yekke understanding of an issue. :-)

«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»

Chabad merely repeats the word
Some iirc repeat the phrase.
Some repeat the Passuk
Some don't repeat at all.

At any rate none of these techniques are based upon a Masoretic formula so to speak. Whereas Gerhsayim/TG afaik has a masoretic note.
-----------------------------------------
Shalom and Best Regards,
RRW

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

[Shmuel Rabin]

They never had a safek, but in later generations we had. Hence the natural position would indeed be to let go of the double reading. But on the other hand, never put down the power of a minhag (which I subscribe to myself, since I am Chabad, although I know there's no real doubt).

Shmuel

--
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.

[Richard]

«They never had a safek, but in later generations we had. Hence the natural position would indeed be to let go of the double reading. But on the other hand, never put down the power of a minhag (which I subscribe to myself, since I am Chabad, although I know there's no real doubt).

Shmuel»

From R Breuer's perspective and even more so from a Yekke and/or Sephardic perspective, adding a safeik that has been settled, is silly
or even a bit of a chutzpah. The Mishnah B'rurah is one of the first to do so and he only introduced it for the case of safeik d'oraisso

Yet where I daven, my son had to lain the last passuk of Ki seitzei 4 times, twice during sh'vii and twice during Maftir in order to accommodate this. At the time I thought I outrageous. EG Why not just zeicher during sh'vii and zecher during Maftir. And before my son's bar mitzah at hashkamah, the hashkamah minyan never did this for Ki Seitzei, though the main Minyan did.

I have even heard a Rav justify all of the extra readings to me personally.

Note: in its siddur Artsroll has Zecher Rav, in Psalm 145

In its Tanach, it has Zeicher Rav.

Bottom Line, new Traditions seem to spring up all over, like newborn babies.

[Shmuel Rabin]

To be fair, a double reading is not "adding" a safek that has been settled, but a carry over from people who read it twice because they truly did not know.

[Richard]

Shmuel Rabin:
«To be fair, a double reading is not "adding" a safek that has been settled, but a carry over from people who read it twice because they truly did not know.»

I don't understand what this means.
Can you elaborate?

The Mishnah B'rurah 685:18 mentions
Yeish Omrim Zeicher
Yeish Omrim Zecher

When it comes to a real safeik, we usually mean that the doubt is roughly 50-50, otherwise we pasken al pee rov, or al pee hazzakah. When I taught Mishnah B'rurah, I objected to representing this case as a 50-50 split of opinions. I believe R Mordechai Breuer would concur.

M"B paskens "meihanachon shehakorei yikra sh'neihem",
without any attribution. And AFAIK it's the earliest written source for this. EG Kitzur SA and Hayei Adam don't have this.

Although the M"B omits mentioning this specifically, I've always presumed it was in the singular context of a safeik d'oraisso.

Also note that when it comes to these matters, there are numerous other doubts, including mivta or havara, the kind of Sefer Torah etc.

[Richard]

Since it seems so many have had their "ideas framed" by the M"B I will offer a different framing for your reading pleasure.


The Mishnah B'rurah 685:18:
Yeish Omrim Zeicher
Yeish Omrim Zecher»

OK had the Rema seen this M"B he might have said,

«Nohagin likros Zeicher bimdinoseinu, v'chein haminhog v'ein l'shanos [usually meaning mipnei hamachlokes]

Which would be my first choice

Here's how Nehemiah Klein might have stated it:

«Yeish Omrim Zeicher
Yeish Omrim Zecher»

So therefore everyone should keep their own Minhog and not change.

Which would be my second choice.

Third choice would be to read it twice everywhere on Parshas Zachor, disregarding the Minhog

Fourth Choice
To read it twice each time for kee Seitzei, too.

Fifth Choice
To read it twice everywhere EG Psalm 145. This was the Minhog of one of my rebbes. But, he did not "evangelize" his minhog to others.

[Shmuel Rabin]

Simple. When the MB wrote this, the research etc. had not been done, Breuer was still a dot on the horizon, and most people were not Masoretic mavens. So the two options were viewed as equal, or maybe even if they weren't, it was still deemed virtuous to adopt both "just in case."

To adopt such a custom now in a community that never had it, now that we "know" what is correct, I agree would be problematic. But most who do this, as far as I know, are not adding a "new safek" as you called it, but simply following minhag avoseihem shebideihem.

Shmuel

[Richard]

When the MB wrote this, the research etc. had not been done,»

So what were his sources?
He states 2 v'yeish omrims. Who were they?

[Richard]

To adopt such a custom now in a community that never had it,»

Well that's exactly what's going on in Ki seitzei. You seem cool with it, to me it's ludicrous.

[Richard]

as far as I know, are not adding a "new safek"»

It is if the safeik before was like 90 to 10 or 99 to 1!

As far as I can tell, it's no older than 250 years at most, and the p'sak is a big hiddush - albeit it was just "meihanachon" and limited to zAchor afacit!

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,


Re. the question why not say it one way in sh'vi'i and the other way in maftir (in Ki Teitzei), I actually do this in Parashat Noach--I say Sarai with a patach in sh'vi'i, and with a kamatz in maftir. No, I have no makor for doing this, but why not? Both seem to valid shitot anyway. If I were leining in modern Israeli S'faradit I could get away with it without anyone knowing! :-)


KT,
Avi H

On 02/26/14, Richard wrote:


Shmuel Rabin:
«The Masoretes however were the ones who established the text,»

I'm OK with that.

So what Masoretic evidence is there for "Zecher" with 2 segols? EG I once looked at a Concordance and the only Zecher found was a proper name.

Assuiming that the Masoretes were the last word, then how can we introduce a safeik that they never had? Or did they indeed express such a safeik?

As may of us know, R Breuer insisted that ONLY Zeicher is correct, one of those few times that he invoked a Yekke understanding of an issue. :-)

«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»

Chabad merely repeats the word
Some iirc repeat the phrase.
Some repeat the Passuk
Some don't repeat at all.

At any rate none of these techniques are based upon a Masoretic formula so to speak. Whereas Gerhsayim/TG afaik has a masoretic note.

-----------------------------------------
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Shmuel Rabin]

Interesting. I am not sure that sarai with patach has a valid source though.

I have seen the above suggested (I can't remember by whom) regarding machalat at the end of Vayishlach (kamatz or patach underneath the mem).

Shmuel

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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,


For some reason, I just do it for Sarai and not Machalat, even though both are seen there too. I dunno--maybe Noach being my bar mitzvah sidrah has something to do with it.


KT,
Avi

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.

--
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.







--

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.

[Ari]

Avi

Why would u do this with sarai?

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]

«To sum up: [Penkower]

* R. David Kimhi mentions two methods of pointing which he observed in Sephardic manuscripts: zekher and zeikher.

* The disciples of the Vilna Gaon disagreed about how their Rabbi used to read this word in Parshat Zakhor, whether with a tzere or a segol.

* Because of uncertainty as to which was correct, the Mishnah Berurah ruled that z-kh-r Amalek should be read twice, once with tzere and once with segol.

* The findings presented by R. Breuer and Dr. Penkower prove conclusively that the correct and original pointing of this word is zeikher (with a tzere). Therefore, in their opinion, one should return to the ancient practice, and all Jewish communities ought to read the word only once, as zeikher.»

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

My Comment:

Although the main thrust of the article is based upon textual research, it is also very valuable for me to know that the ancient practice was just Zeicher, and that the current minhog is a kind of revision of longstanding tradition. Had the double reading reached back to the time of the Rishonim, I might view very differently.

[Zev Sero]

On 26/02/2014 7:38 PM, Richard wrote:
> Although the main thrust of the article is based upon textual research, it is also very valuable for me to know that the ancient practice was just Zeicher, and that the current minhog is a kind of revision of longstanding tradition. Had the double reading reached back to the time of the Rishonim, I might view very differently.

The practice is certainly older than the Mishneh Berurah, and does not derive
from there. Just how old it is I can't say, but Lubavitch certainly didn't
derive it from the MB, or from any dispute about what the Vilner Gaon did or
didn't do. There's also the Lubliner Rov's saying "zeicher, zecher, abi gut
opmeken", which dates the double reading to at least a few decades before the MB.

--
Zev Sero A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
the reason he needs.
- Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

[Richard]

There's also the Lubliner Rov's saying "zeicher, zecher, abi gut

opmeken", which dates the double reading to at least a few decades before the MB.»

OK when did the repetition minhog first make it into print?

[Avram Herzog]

Hi Ari,


Only because there is a machloket here, so I do both. It's clearly not m'akeiv anything, and since the ta'am is pausal (zakeif katon) both can work.


KT,
Avi H

> -----------------------------------------
> Shalom and Best Regards,
> RRW
>
> MISTAKES
> are always forgivable
> If you have the courage to admit them.
>

[AMK Judaica]

Avi,

1) of the thousands of variants, why davka this one do you single out?

2) what do you mean that both can work because it is pausal?

**********

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 21:20:37 -0600
> From: avm...@verizon.net
> To: lei...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: [leining] Zeicher, Zecher, and the Masoretic texg

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,


Re. your point one, as I mentioned, I don't have a solid reason, I was simply giving an example similar to zeicher/zecher, insofar as an option of a sh'vi'i/maftir repetition. Re. your point 2, "sheim eishet Avram Sarai" has a zakeif katon, which as we know, is sometimes treated like an etnachta re. nikkud, as opposed to the other references to Sarai which take a patach. This is all I meant to imply and nothing more.


KT,
Avi

[Shmuel Rabin]

While many in Lubavitch did the double reading earlier, it wasn't an "official" Lubavitch minhag until 1952.

According to the testimony of Rabbi Yaakov Landau of Bnei Brak, in Lubavitch proper during the times of the Rashab, they read in Beshalach only zeicher, and in Zachor only zecher.

Shmuel

--
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.

[Nehemiah Klein]

Here's how Nehemiah Klein might have stated it:

«Yeish Omrim Zeicher
Yeish Omrim Zecher»

So therefore everyone should keep their own Minhog and not change.

Which would be my second choice.

Thank you Rabbi Rich for stating my opinion.  You are almost right, there is one caveat - the minhag of the shul takes precedence over your personal minhag if you are a baal kriah/shliach tzibbur, especially if you are trying to introduce something with no source.  The example you cited is correct - we have a source for saying zeicher and zecher in Parshas Zachor and it is a widely accepted custom, whether or not it makes sense to you if that is the minhag of the shul then the baal kriah must do it that way.  I am not aware of any poskim who say to do that for Ki Seitze, therefore no one has the right to add his own two-cents in a shul setting out of his own svaras. 

I actually used to say that about machalas/mochalas at the end of Toldos, some would say one for shvii and one for maftir - the idea disturbed me there as well as an innovation, until I saw it in R' Yehoshua Leib Diskin's perush on Chumash who explains the difference and I believe quotes earlier medakdekim who would read both. Still, if this is not the minhag of the shul then it should not be done, but at least here there are gedolim who suggest it..

Unfortunately, there are many who learn in Yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael and then come back to Nusach Ashkenaz America and as shliach tzibbur say morid hatal - why?  Does the Rema not say that this is not the Ashkenazi custom, just because it is done in Eretz Yisrael does that make it more holy?  If you want to adopt that personally that's your business, but what gives you the right as shliach tzibbur to do that?  Similarly, at maariv there are many shlichei tzibbur who twiddle their thumbs while the tzibbur says 'baruch Hashem leolam ...' - if you are  a shliach tzibbur then you must say it with them, otherwise decline the offer.  

I live in Eretz Yisrael and personally do not say Ein Kelokeinu during the week, it is not my minhag - but if I am shliach tzibbur then of course I do, I could also just twiddle my thumbs and say the last line out loud also.  .

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

[Richard]

In light of Nehemiah's comments
Revised -

"So therefore everyone should keep their local Minhag Hammakom and not change."

Hammakom Y'nacheim!

[Richard]

To be fair, a double reading is not "adding" a safek that has been settled, but a carry over from people who read it twice because they truly did not know.»

It's nice to be fair, to see both sides of the coin.

I can endorse that approach myself.

But, even when I can understand both sides, it does not necessarily mean that I may not take a side.

[Richard]

Simple. When the MB wrote this, the research etc. had not been done, Breuer was still a dot on the horizon, and most people were not Masoretic mavens. So the two options were viewed as equal, or maybe even if they weren't, it was still deemed virtuous to adopt both "just in case."»


Heidenheim had Zeicher all along - before 1820. So why bother looking elsewhere?

[Richard]

Afaik
1. When a community is machmir as a "geder" or "s'yag" while realizing something is technically muttar, then they are commited to continue. EG Kitniyyos

2. When a community thinks something is assur min haddin, and is nohheig an issur, and then discovers that there was never an issur, the minhog is deemed minhog ta'us and is boteil. AFAIK this is a Tosafos

I'm not sure of this case, but it seems worse than #2 because instead of introducing an unnecessary humra, it actually is perpetuatin a non-masoretic version of the text that has been discredited.

I'm not a poseik, but that's my take on the situation.

[Richard]

Re: Maariv / Arvis of Shavuos I wrote;

«Mishnah B'ruarah -
Soseim k'Taz»

Contrast this with my daily M"B seder

In O"Ch 162:26 the M"B paskens one opinion about adding water

In the Sha'ar Hatizyyun, 22 the M"B addresses the Rosh and the Rash [R Shimson of Sens] who harbor doubts about this.

IOW he decided X over Y, then addressed why Y was not the Halachah in his notes.

Also see M"B 30 and ShTz 26 where the M"B explains why he omitted the opinion of the Taz in his text due to the d'chiyah of the Maamar Mordechai.

Despite my criticisms re: the M"B's error of omissions in the case of Arvis on Shavuos and Zeicher/Zecher, the M"B actually usually does tell us, at least in his notes, when he omits an important opinion in the text.

Maybe I'm too demanding, but I've come to expect that kind of thoroughness. If you're going to cite an opinion re: a controversy, I expect citing why one is rejecting the contrary opionion, or at least mentioning its existence.

[Richard]

Reading multiple versions of words in Megilla and Zachor - Mi Yodeya

http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/313/reading-multiple-versions-of-words-in-megilla-and-zachor

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

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

[Richard]

NishmaBlog: Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 2

http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/03/zachor-zeicher-vs-zecher-2.html


«Re zeicher and zecher.

My brother-in-law, Prof. Jordan Penkower of Br Ilan University wrote an extensive article proving that the correct pronunciation is zeicher. It's way beyond my expertise although Jordan acknowledged as a leading expert in Bible studies, Jewish manuscripts etc.

I asked a member of my shul, who is also an expert in this field and who often is the ba'al korey on Parshat Zachor, if he had read the article. he said he had and that Jordan was "absolutely" correct. So I asked him (as Jordan had asked me to) whether he would read it only that way (zeicher) on Parshat Zachor. "Of course not," he replied; "what do facts have to do with minhag Yisrael?" And sure enough, he read it both ways.

Joseph Kaplan»

[Richard]

«RRW:
 
it's a good intro to the subject and it's hard to beat r. breuer's literary flair (especially his great polemical rhetoric), but prof. penkower's article on the subject is considerably more comprehensive.
 
kol tuv,
ari kinsberg»

[Richard]

I post this about 3 years ago

«Just a footnote re: the Yekke Minhag from R Breuer's article which I read years ago -

IIRC R Breuer points out that whenever the Minchas Shai quoted Rishonim - the Yekkes accepted his emendations to the minhag

In the 2 places where Michas Shai did not quote a Rishon, but used EG s'vara etc, they did NOT change the minhag! »

[Richard]

«IIRC R Breuer points out that whenever the Minchas Shai quoted Rishonim - the Yekkes accepted his emendations to the minhag »

See the Breuer PDF p. "98" the paragraph starting
"D'vorim elu mochichim shebaal minchas sha l'vaddo lo nechshav mei'olaam samchus muchletes"

Ending "oolam da'as hayochid shel ba'al Minchas Shai los heespikah k'dei l'hotzee es hasafeik milev horabbbim"

Meaning the Minchas Shai was accepted when he had corroroborating evidence such as the RemaH [with a Heh] who was a Rishon. Because the Ohr Hattorah went b'ikvus haRMah...

So I was pretty darn close

Yes these 2 are the only ones anunciated and that also appears in the article but my point was there, too more or less, that the Minchas Shai himself was not a bar samcha without another source, which happened to be a Rishon in the case of the Torah.

[Aryeh Moshen]

I can understand a double reading, just to accommodate the Gra's opinion, but why does ArtScroll decide that it will change Nusach Ashkenaz around to match the Gra (Zecher Rav with a segol) and others (as in Bfeh Amo) as well as other t'chinoth that are not part of traditional Nusach Ashkenaz.  Is Chadash asur min Hatorah or not?

[Richard]

but why does ArtScroll decide that it will change Nusach Ashkenaz around to match the Gra (Zecher Rav with a segol) and others (as in Bfeh Amo) as well as other t'chinoth that are not part of traditional Nusach Ashkenaz.  Is Chadash asur min Hatorah or not?»

Zecher is found in some ashekenazis siddurim. It's in that link provided.

B'feh is a case of Midrash over grammar. G'matriya B'feh = 87

[Richard]

I have an informal Beth Din
A. Western Ashkenaz WA
B. Eastern Ashkenaz EA
C. Eidot Mizrach EM

WA is the usual "wing man"

B'niddon deedon -
WA and EM vote no Zecher, at all afaik not in Zachor and not in Psalm 145

For a few more cases -
WA and EM vote yes Tallith for an unmarried man

WA and EA vote no Kitnioth on Passover

WA and EA vote Duchen on Y"T only

EA and EM vote B'feh [I say B'fee anyway]

I believe for the aliyyoth in B'reishith
WA and EM both have r'vii after Vaychulu.

It works for me about 80+% of the time.

[Richard]

Re: Arvis of Shavuos I posted

«Mishnah B'ruarah -
Soseim k'Taz»

Contrast this with a M"B I studied yesterday.

In O"Ch 162:26 the M"B paskens one opinion about adding water

In the Sha'ar Hatizyyun 22, the M"B addresses the Rosh and the Rash [R Shimson of Sens] who harbor doubts about this.

IOW he decided X over Y, then addressed in the notes about why Y was not the Halachah.

Also see M"B 30 and ShTz 26 where the M"B explains why he omitted the opinion of the Taz in his text due to the d'chiyah of the Maamar Mordechai.

[For more of covering all opinions see Sha'ar Hatziyyun 28 + 29]


Despite my criticisms re: the M"B's error of omissions in the cases of Arvis on Shavuos and Zeicher/zecher, the M"B usually tells us in his notes when he omits an important opinion.

I guess I've come to expect that kind of thoroughness. I wouldn't expect from say the Kitzur S"A, but a robust sefer should address a variety of opinions.

[Richard Wolpoe]

דברים אלה מוכיחים, שבעל מנחת שי לבדו לא נחשב מעולם סמכות מוחלטת וסופית,
ומבחינה זו יש להבחין בין הגהות מנחת שי לתורה ובין הגהותיו לנ"ך. בכתיב התורה הלך
מנחת שי בעקבות אור תורה; ואור תורה הלך בעקבות הרמ"ה, שהיה מגדולי הראשונים,
והכרעותיו ביחס לכתיב התורה נתקבלו כולן בעדה האשכנזית. ורק במקומות המועטים,
שהרמ"ה נשאר בהם בספק, הכריע אור תורה על-פי דעת עצמו. נמצא, שכתיב התורה נקבע
בכל מקום על פי שניים עדים או על פי שלושה עדים; ודי היה בעדים הנאמנים האלה כדי
להוציא את הספק מלבו של כל אדם; שונה הדבר בכתיב נביאים וכתובים - כולל גם מגילת
אסתר. שהרי הרמ"ה ובעל אור תורה עסקו רק בתורה, ואילו בנ"ך פעל בעל מנחת שי לבדו;
והיה עליו להכריע בכל הספקות על-פי דעת עצמו - בלא כל סיוע של שאר גדולי ישראל.
אולם דעת היחיד של בעל מנחת שי לא הספיקה כדי להוציא את הספק מלב הרבים.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Richard <rabbiri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just the paragr d'vroim eileh mochichim sh!a'al minchas shai l'vaddo no nechsav mei'o$ samcus muchletes.

Ending with

Oolam da'as hayoched shel ba'al minchas shai los ispeekah b'dei l'hotzie es hasafeik milevi horabbin.

He mamash says what I said except the point about "rishon"

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

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

---

From: "Richard" <rabbi.ri...@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:34:50 +0000

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

ReplyTo: rabbi.ri...@gmail.com

Subject: Re: [leining] Zeicher, Zecher, and the Masoretic texg

Can you snip the paragraphs I quoted from P. 98 starting

Oolam
V'al pee
Oolam
And
D'vorim eleh mochichim

Thank You

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

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

---

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:28:42 +0000 (GMT)

To: rabbi.ri...@gmail.com<rabbi.ri...@gmail.com>

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

Subject: Re: [leining] Zeicher, Zecher, and the Masoretic texg

Here is what he says:

יש במהדורת יעקב בן חיים שתים עשרה שגיאות כתיב במגילה. עשר שגיאות במלא וחסר... ושתי שגיאות אחרות: להרג, בפניהם, שכבר הובאו לעיל. עשר מתוך שתים עשרה השגיאות האלה - למעט רק והלבשו, לקיים - תוקנו בידי בעל מנחת שי ... הסופרים והמדפיסים קיבלו את כל תיקוניו של בעל מנחת שי, הנוגעים לכתיב מלא או חסר׃ כנגד זה שני התיקונים הנוגעים לאותיות השימוש - ולהרג, לפניהם - לא פשטו בציבור

What more do you want

To sum up

There were 12 mistakes and MS corrected 10 of them

Of those 10 the 8 that didn't affect pronunciation were accepted

And only v'laharog and lifneihem were not

I admit I made an error in my previous quote that 10 out of MS's 12 corrections were accepted

It should say 8 out of 10

Anyway in 8 out of 10 cases MS himself was enough to change the text

On Friday, 28 February 2014, 14:59, Richard <rabbiri...@gmail.com> wrote:

But for 10 cases out of 12 they did emend the text, even though MS was the only authority»

Is that what r Reuer says?

He says lo nechsag mei'olam samchis muchletes v'sofis.

I'm quoting off of the PDF

Where do you get your evidence?

He specifcially says yeish l'avchin bein hagahos MS L'Torah uveinbhagahos l'Tanach.

Re: the torah solach b'ikbvus ohr Torah who was b'ikvus Harmah "Shehoyoh migdolei horishonim" his own words?

And so hachro'osov b'yachas lichsiv torah nisklably cullan b'adas ahskenazis

Read the paragraph! He says re: Nach the MS alone was not enough to undo a safeik millevi horabbim.

I really don't know where you're getting your points from. And to say there is nothing to what I said is mamash misleading.

If you are unable to change your mind, fine. I will just unerstand that you cannot be objective etc. And deal with that.

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

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

---

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:36:05 +0000 (GMT)

To: rabbi.ri...@gmail.com<rabbi.ri...@gmail.com>

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

Subject: Re: [leining] Zeicher, Zecher, and the Masoretic texg

"the Minchas Shai himself was not a bar samcha without another source, which happened to be a Rishon in the case of the Torah."

But for 10 cases out of 12 they did emend the text, even though MS was the only authority!

I guess if you want to be exact, you should write "the Minchas Shai himself was not a bar samcha without another source", or even "the minhag was not consistent with whether they regarded Minchas Shai himself as a bar samcha without another source"...

On Friday, 28 February 2014, 14:27, Richard <rabbiri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Did you re-read the passage I cited?

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: "Richard" <rabbi.ri...@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:20:42
To: <baal...@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply-To: rabbi.ri...@gmail.com
Subject: Fw: [leining] Zeicher, Zecher, and the Masoretic texg


Rishon is mentioned in passing. I revised myself already.

Are you being honest with me?

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard <rabbiri...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 05:31:26
To: Leining<lei...@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: rabbi.ri...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [leining] Zeicher, Zecher, and the Masoretic texg

«IIRC R Breuer points out that whenever the Minchas Shai quoted Rishonim - the Yekkes accepted his emendations to the minhag »

See the Breuer PDF p. "98"  the paragraph starting
"D'vorim elu mochichim shebaal minchas sha l'vaddo lo nechshav mei'olaam samchus muchletes"

Ending "oolam da'as hayochid shel ba'al Minchas Shai los heespikah k'dei l'hotzee es hasafeik milev horabbbim"

Meaning the Minchas Shai was accepted when he had corroroborating evidence such as the RemaH [with a Heh] who was a Rishon.  Because the Ohr Hattorah went b'ikvus haRMah...

So I was pretty darn close

Yes these 2 are the only ones anunciated and that also appears in the article but my point was there, too more or less, that the Minchas Shai himself was not a bar samcha without another source, which happened to be a Rishon in the case of the Torah.

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

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

--
Shalom and Regards,
RabbiRi...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/

[Richard]

When the Mishnah B'rurah deal with Zecher Zeicher, it appears for some reason or another that he did not go to consult the best versions of Torah available. Or maybe he did and they were in conflict.

At any rate, it calls into question whether consulting the "best text" is enough. To me in this case YES, because Zecher looks to me more like a ta'us to begin with, not a well-founded alternate. Even the Ma'aseh Rav was mildly disputed by R Chaim Volozhin, which casts a doubt even re: the GRA's sheetah. Certainly the Hayyei Adam overlooks this.

Also I don't consider a minhog for 150 years as absolute. That's just me.

Shabbat Shalom

[Richard Wolpoe]

אולם דברים אלה נתקיימו רק בחלקם. כי הסופרים והמדפיסים קיבלו את כל

תיקוניו של בעל מנחת שי, הנוגעים לכתיב מלא או חסר 4; כנגד זה שני התיקונים הנוגעים

לאותיות השימוש - ולהרג, לפניהם - לא פשטו בציבור; ועדיין המגילות האשכנזיות
והדפוסים המקובלים - כגון מהדורת לטריס, שצולמה אחר-כך בהוצאות יבנה, אשכול
וסיני - מציגות את הנוסח המוטעה של יעקב בן חיים: להרג, בפניהם.

דברים אלה מוכיחים, שבעל מנחת שי לבדו לא נחשב מעולם סמכות מוחלטת וסופית,
ומבחינה זו יש להבחין בין הגהות מנחת שי לתורה ובין הגהותיו לנ"ך. בכתיב התורה הלך
מנחת שי בעקבות אור תורה; ואור תורה הלך בעקבות הרמ"ה, שהיה מגדולי הראשונים,
והכרעותיו ביחס לכתיב התורה נתקבלו כולן בעדה האשכנזית. ורק במקומות המועטים,
שהרמ"ה נשאר בהם בספק, הכריע אור תורה על-פי דעת עצמו. נמצא, שכתיב התורה נקבע
בכל מקום על פי שניים עדים או על פי שלושה עדים; ודי היה בעדים הנאמנים האלה כדי
להוציא את הספק מלבו של כל אדם; שונה הדבר בכתיב נביאים וכתובים - כולל גם מגילת
אסתר. שהרי הרמ"ה ובעל אור תורה עסקו רק בתורה, ואילו בנ"ך פעל בעל מנחת שי לבדו;
והיה עליו להכריע בכל הספקות על-פי דעת עצמו - בלא כל סיוע של שאר גדולי ישראל.
אולם דעת היחיד של בעל מנחת שי לא הספיקה כדי להוציא את הספק מלב הרבים.

ועל-פי הדברים האלה נוכל להסביר את העובדה, שהגהות מנחת שי למגילת אסתר
נתקבלו רק באותם העניינים הנוגעים לכתיב מלא וחסר, ולא בשני העניינים הנוגעים
לאותיות השימוש: ולהרג, לפניהם. שהרי זה מן המפורסמות, שמגילת אסתר איננה
נפסלת על-ידי כתיב משובש - ואפילו על-ידי השמטת תיבות שלמות - ובלבד שהקורא
יקרא בפיו את הנוסח כהלכה 5. אולם שיבושי כתיב מלא או חסר אינם משנים את

הקריאה; כנגד זה שיבושים הנוגעים לאותיות השימוש - כגון להרג-ולהרג, בפניהם-
לפניהם - יש בהם כדי לשנות את הקריאה; ואם יקרא הקורא את הנוסח המשובש הכתוב
במגילה, יש מקום לחשוש, שלא יצא כלל ידי חובת הקריאה.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Richard <rabbiri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Shmuel Rabin:
«The Masoretes however were the ones who established the text,»

I'm OK with that.

So what Masoretic evidence is there for "Zecher" with 2 segols? EG I once looked at a Concordance and the only Zecher found was a proper name.

Assuiming that the Masoretes were the last word, then how can we introduce a safeik that they never had? Or did they indeed express such a safeik?

As may of us know, R Breuer insisted that ONLY Zeicher is correct, one of those few times that he invoked a Yekke understanding of an issue. :-)

«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»

Chabad merely repeats the word

Some iirc repeat the phrase.
Some repeat the Passuk
Some don't repeat at all.

At any rate none of these techniques are based upon a Masoretic formula so to speak. Whereas Gerhsayim/TG afaik has a masoretic note.

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

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

[Richard Wolpoe]

"Mishnah B'rurah is one of the first to do so and he only introduced it for the case of safeik d'oraisso"

R Herzog's descripton of the re-readings for parshas zchor seem to indicate that it was due to the dlorachopr that every die;ah needed to be accommodated.  The M"B himself did not say so specifically, but it seems quite clear from context

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Richard <rabbiri...@gmail.com> wrote:

«They never had a safek, but in later generations we had. Hence the natural position would indeed be to let go of the double reading. But on the other hand, never put down the power of a minhag (which I subscribe to myself, since I am Chabad, although I know there's no real doubt).

Shmuel»

From R Breuer's perspective and even more so from a Yekke and/or Sephardic perspective, adding a safeik that has been settled, is silly
or even a bit of a chutzpah.  The Mishnah B'rurah is one of the first to do so and he only introduced it for the case of safeik d'oraisso

Yet where I daven, my son had to lain the last passuk of Ki seitzei 4 times, twice during sh'vii and twice during Maftir in order to accommodate this. At the time I thought I outrageous. EG Why not just zeicher during sh'vii and zecher during Maftir.  And before my son's bar mitzah at  hashkamah, the hashkamah minyan never did this for Ki Seitzei, though the main Minyan did.

I have even heard a Rav justify all of the extra readings to me personally.

Note: in its siddur Artsroll has Zecher Rav, in Psalm 145

In its Tanach, it has Zeicher Rav.

Bottom Line, new Traditions seem to spring up all over, like newborn babies.

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

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

[Shmuel Rabin]

When did I deny any of that? 

I am sending again the point I was making:

You wrote: "IIRC though, the Minchas Shai made many emendations to Megillas Esther and succeeded with all except these 2. The 2 that were resisted iirc were because he could not cite any Rishon"

That last paragraph makes it look like the other emendations were accepted only because he cited a rishon. However he does not cite a rishon and they were accepted regardless. That's what I mean by "he does not say this at all." Even regarding the 2 that were resisted, "because he could not cite any Rishon" is misleading because that's not the whole reason, as Breuer continues at length.

That was my whole position, not any more and not any less.

--
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.