Qadma on Last Letter?
rabbiri...@gmail.com
V'hareimota Mechess
Matot 31:28
I belive we discussed this in Mahpach.
Aparently this is q Qadma v'Azla despite the Qadma on the last letter - namely the Tav.
I guess the vov hipuch triggers this anomaly
One of the list of "unusual" aspects to this week's reading including
Qarnei Farah..
The Masa'ot tune
This case
Any more?
Good Shabbos
RRW
Good Shabbos
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
MG
Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon
Jeremy
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
>
MG
Mileil = Geresh. You will never find an azla geresh on a milrah word.
"Meches" is mileil.
Similarly: "Vayirdifu Mitzrayim" in the first posuk of Sheni of
Beshalach...."Mitzrayim" is an Azla Geresh.
Don't people here lain these two ta'amim differently? The Geresh
sounds like an extended Azla to accomodate the fact that it is on a
penultimate syllable.
On Jul 9, 1:18 am, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon
Jeremy
----- Original Message -----
From: MG <markgi...@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, July 9, 2010 1:25 am
Subject: [leining] Re: Qadma on Last Letter?
To: leining <lei...@googlegroups.com>
MG
ta'am - one name for when it has a kadma and one for when there is no
kadma? Why should the name change based on what its mesharet is?
I don't have Breuer, and I'll look up Wickes, but Hanau is very clear
on this. Can provide the link to support this. (And we can discuss
this in another post, but there is no way I would accept Wickes over
someone who had a mesorah, regardless of his level of scholarship.)
The Azla, Azla-Geresh, and Gershayim all are one family of ta'amim,
just as there is a zakef family and a pashta family. But of course
the Azla, Azla-Geresh, and Gershayim are different trup.
Having a kadma before an azla isn't related to syllables. Given a
pair of words, a kadma will precede an azla unless the first word has
its accent on the first letter (implying mileil as well): in that case
it gets a munach. In those cases if the second word is milrah it will
become a gershayim (unless the prior word has a telisha ketana, then
it will stay as kadma v'azla even though the accent of the first word
is on the first letter, since a telisha ketana must always be followed
by a kadma). So we first look to the second word to determine whether
it will be a azla-geresh (if it is mileil) or Azla/Gershayim (if it is
milrah).
You can sing the tunes however you want to; however, when a ta'am is
mileil, it is azla-geresh. Just because it has a kadma in front of it
doesn't change that.
On Jul 9, 1:36 am, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:
Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon
I do concede that the separate name is curious, but other than the standard chart in the back of the chumash, I'm not sure what basis there is for giving it two names. But what is the origin of that chart, and how much legitimacy does it have. (BTW, do you call a geresh preceded by a munach a geresh or an azla, and based on what.
Finally, regarding Hanau, what od you mean that he had a mesorah. If you just mean that he was a learned Jew who learned from his teachers (whereas Wickes was not), I agree, of course. But if you mean that he had a specific centuries long mesorah for these issues in particular, I'm not so sure that's true. certainly elsewhere he felt free to innovate.
JEremy
----- Original Message -----
From: MG <markgi...@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, July 9, 2010 2:33 am
Subject: [leining] Re: Qadma on Last Letter?
To: leining <lei...@googlegroups.com>
MG
Hanau is controversial (and not just because he innovated);
nonethless, many who came after him, including the Gr"a, relied on his
work. I don't follow Hanau with respect to his innovations, but I
feel that he lays down rules that are very logical and thorough.
However, as a non-Jewish professor, I just can't/won't rely on Wickes
unless there is a situation where nobody else comments.
I'm going to do some more digging here. According to you, it's not
just a matter of the curiosity of having two separate names for these
identical accents. You do have the highly curious fact that this
thing you call Azla Geresh, throughout Tanach, is always on a mileil
word, never on milrah, and you're saying that's just random? That
that might not indicate something about the nature of this ta'am,
unrelated to the mesharet that precedes it?
When you ask "BTW, do you call a geresh preceded by a munach a geresh
or an azla, and based on what?".....it's a very simple methodology.
If the word is mileil, it is an azla-geresh. If the word is milrah,
it is an azla. You NEVER have a situation where there is a munach
followed by a milrah word with an azla. If that has to happen, the
"azla" word will change to gershayim. Azla and kadma go together; if
the kadma dissapears, because the accent is on the first letter of the
word and therefore requires a munach, then the azla dissapears and
becomes a gershayim.
As far as the chart in the back of the Chumash, are you then saying
that that has no legitimacy at all with respect to the name azla-
geresh, and that this azla-geresh thing may not even exist? That's
kind of a big statement. I do agree that the chart itself cannot be
used to prove anything with respect to the _nature_ of the ta'amim,
and that the names of the trop are inconsistent with the rules of the
trup themselves (for example, you would never have a gershayim on the
word "gershayim" and you would never find a yetiv on the word "yetiv",
so one cannot "use" the chart to determine rules) -- however, the
actual names of the trup that we have must have some legitimacy to
them. Certainly some trup are left out (m'aylah, metigah), but if
it's included in the chart, how can you dismiss that?
Besides, forget the chart: Hanau predated Heidenheim, Breuer, Wickes,
Jacobson et al and he discusses the azla geresh. IIRC R' Eliyahu
Bachur also discusses the azla-geresh.
On Jul 9, 9:56 am, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:
Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon
c
Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine (Emergency Medicine)
Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Bioethics
Columbia University
Sammy Noe
I've never known this: but why should the same note on a different part of the word have a different name?!
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
Shields, Meyer (Baltimore)
syllable it appear on."
I think R. Breuer actually has several classes of munachim.
Meyer Shields, FCAS
Principal, Equity Research
Stifel, Nicolaus and Company, Incorporated
One South Street, 16th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
(V) 443-224-1331
(F) 443-224-1392
(M) 443-610-9477
mshi...@stifel.com
********************************************************************************
All electronic messages sent and received by Stifel Nicolaus
Associates are subject to review by Stifel Nicolaus. Stifel Nicolaus
may retain and reproduce electronic messages for state, federal, or
other regulatory agencies as required by applicable law.
IMPORTANT: Please do not use e-mail to request or authorize the
purchase or sale of any security or commodity, send fund transfer
instructions, or otherwise conduct any securities transactions. Any
requests, orders, instructions, or time-sensitive messages sent by
e-mail cannot be accepted or processed by Stifel Nicolaus. The
accuracy of any information sent by Stifel Nicolaus through e-mail
cannot be warranted or guaranteed by Stifel Nicolaus or its affiliates.
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated
Member NYSE & SIPC
Headquarters: 501 N. Broadway, St. Louis, MO 63102
314-342-2000
********************************************************************************
rabbiri...@gmail.com
«This is a Qadma followed by Azla-Geresh, not Qadma V'azla»
OK a Reader in the Heights told me
Pashta Azla Geresh
On Mahapch I was told
Qadma v'Azla and that this was a unique Qadma
MG
has Qadma Azla-Geresh which is very new to me
I quickly peaked at my Simanim Tiqqun and didn't see anything definite so far
Sammy Noe
Everybody has several names for a munach: before the (azlo) geresh, gershayim, t'lisho g'doiloh ( but NOT t'lisho k'tanoh!), pozer, karnei foroh, t'vir, and the good old r'vi'a, and also sharing with a zokef kotton it's a munach; before the esnachto, the zarko, and when it's followed by a zokef kotton on another word, it's an "illoiy"; when it's stressed under the first letter and followed by a zokef kotton on another word, and when it's followed by munach zokef kotton, it's a "carbalto"; and then, of course we have the "legarmeh".
No, I don't know this off by heart, I've copied it from Ta'amei hamikro by Rabbi S Weinfeld.
But, he like evreyone else, gives absolutely no reaon for their different sames though having exactly the same shape; nor does he give any one a different function from the other.
I'm just hopelessly foncused by all this.
Regards
|
Sammy Noe
This has got to be a kadmo v'azlo and nothing else: we have discussed elsewhere that the kadmo on the last letter would be positioned towards the end (left hand side) of that letter; if the note were a pashto it would stationed at the brginning (right hand side) of the letter.
Regards
|
MG
Do we find that a ta'am would get a separate name based on whether it
has a particular mesharet preceding it?
Do we call a pashta "divorced" from a mahpach a "pashta geresh"?
What do you mean "from where do I get"? I didn't make this up; it's
all in Hanau. And it's not true that "there is just geresh mileil and
geresh milrah" - don't you find it odd that when there is no kadma
there, it always happens to be geresh mileil, every time? You're
ignoring that evidence.
Secondly, we DO find that trup get different names based, at least
partially, on a mileil vs. milrah distinction: a yetiv vs. pashta is
the example (although the rules for that are a little more complex and
are not only about mileil vs. milrah, it does factor in). The only
difference is that we change the shape of the pashta to a yetiv shape,
but they are the same family and same level of mafsiq.
Besides, you yourself have to admit that mileil vs. milrah plays a
role in whether a word gets geresh vs. gershayim; surely all of your
sources make that distinction!
On Jul 9, 10:49 am, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:
Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon
> First of all, you should apply your own logic to your own argument!
> Do we find that a ta'am would get a separate name based on whether it
> has a particular mesharet preceding it?
> Do we call a pashta "divorced" from a mahpach a "pashta geresh"?
>
I have conceded that the list of te'amim would be a problem, but, as the distinction is made there and no where else (other than Hanau), I would rather say that the list is the problem, not all the other, legitimate, sources that do not make the distinction. Furthermore, in that list, the ta'am is milira (IIRC) both times.
> What do you mean "from where do I get"? I didn't make this up; it's
> all in Hanau.
I realize that. It's just that I have a very strong suspicion he made it up, just as he made up shva merachef.
>And it's not true that "there is just geresh mileil and
> geresh milrah" - don't you find it odd that when there is no kadma
> there, it always happens to be geresh mileil, every time? You're
> ignoring that evidence.
>
This is merely evedence that the rule for when a geresh is preceded by a kadma requires that the geresh be meliel, not that there are two differnent te'amim.
> Secondly, we DO find that trup get different names based, at least
> partially, on a mileil vs. milrah distinction: a yetiv vs. pashta is
> the example (although the rules for that are a little more complex and
> are not only about mileil vs. milrah, it does factor in). The only
> difference is that we change the shape of the pashta to a yetiv shape,
> but they are the same family and same level of mafsiq.
Exactly. When they are treated differently, they get a different shape
>
> Besides, you yourself have to admit that mileil vs. milrah plays a
> role in whether a word gets geresh vs. gershayim; surely all of your
> sources make that distinction!
>
Of course, but again, there are different signs in this case.
BTW, someone mentioned the different types of munach. This is indeed relevant, and something I have puzzled over. The difference here is that we have evidence, from the Taj, of the distinction between mekurbal and ilui, dating back close to the time these te'amim were documented in Tiberias.
>
Jeremy
MG
> This has got to be a kadmo v'azlo and nothing else: we have discussed elsewhere that the kadmo on the last letter would be positioned towards the end (left hand side) of that letter; if the note were a pashto it would stationed at the brginning (right hand side) of the letter.
last letter, the kadma (if it needs to be on the last letter) comes in
the middle or right of the last letter.
This can't be pashta anyway; pashta can't precede azla or azla geresh
Sammy Noe
| Whoops, sorry you're right, sorry correct! |
--- On Fri, 9/7/10, MG <markgi...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
MG
up, and our list of ta'amim contains a ta'am that doesn't exist? As I
said, that's a big statement. Also, in the list it is mileil: GAY-
resh is mileil. Regardless, I already said you cannot use the list of
ta'amim to derive rules about the ta'amim themselves.
> This is merely evedence that the rule for when a geresh is preceded by a kadma requires that the geresh be meliel, not that there are two differnent te'amim.
the azla is milrah, obviously, everywhere. So I'm not following what
you mean here. Please explain.
I'm not talking about where there is a kadma anyway. I am talking
about where there is NO kadma. When there is no kadma, this "trup"
ALWAYS falls on a mileil word. It's not hard proof, but it is
evidence to believe that the nature of this trup is dependent on the
type of word it falls on, especially when we also have the gershayim
from the same family which behaves similarly and only falls on a
milrah word, which even you admit is true.
If there is only one trup as you say, isn't it odd that when it comes
without a kadma it happens to always be on a mileil word, every
time?
You haven't answered that curiosity at all.
> Exactly. When they are treated differently, they get a different shape
many ta'amim have similar shapes and are very different. My point is
that mileil vs. milrah can be a determinant.
Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon
> up, and our list of ta'amim contains a ta'am that doesn't exist? As I
> said, that's a big statement. Also, in the list it is mileil: GAY-
> resh is mileil. Regardless, I already said you cannot use the list of
> ta'amim to derive rules about the ta'amim themselves.
I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't exist" Of course, there are times when a geresh is not preceded by a kadma (or any mesharet). To that extent, obviously, it exists. The question is whether this represents a unique ta'am in the set of te'amim. Other than RZ"H and the list at the back of the chumash, no one seems to thinks so.
>
> > This is merely evedence that the rule for when a geresh is preceded
> by a kadma requires that the geresh be meliel, not that there are two
> differnent te'amim.
>
> This is an extremely puzzling statement. You find kadma v'azla where
> the azla is milrah, obviously, everywhere. So I'm not following what
> you mean here. Please explain.
> I'm not talking about where there is a kadma anyway.
I wasn't talking about Kadma either, so I'm not sure what you're confusion is.
> I am talking about where there is NO kadma. When there is no kadma, this "trup"
> ALWAYS falls on a mileil word. It's not hard proof, but it is
> evidence to believe that the nature of this trup is dependent on the
> type of word it falls on, especially when we also have the gershayim
> from the same family which behaves similarly and only falls on a
> milrah word, which even you admit is true.
What I am saying is that it is not the nature of the trup that depends on where it is on the word, but the nature of the mesharet (if any) that will precede it.
> If there is only one trup as you say, isn't it odd that when it comes
> without a kadma it happens to always be on a mileil word, every
> time?
> You haven't answered that curiosity at all.
See my last comment.
>
> > Exactly. When they are treated differently, they get a different shape
>
> Pointless to bring proofs from shapes of ta'amim, as we all know too
> many ta'amim have similar shapes and are very different. My point is
> that mileil vs. milrah can be a determinant.
>
There are similar shapes, and then there are identical shapes. but anyway, I am not arguing that the nakdanim couldn't have used one shape for two te'amim, just that your example, from yetiv/pashta, is not applicable here. Furthermore, in the absence of a different shape, the burden of proof that there are two te'amim present is much higher.
Jeremy
Michael Poppers
> MG
> «This is a Qadma followed by Azla-Geresh, not Qadma V'azla»
>
> OK a Reader in the Heights told me
> Pashta Azla Geresh
>
to http://www.dartmouth.edu/~djsa/view_song.php?songId=8147 , album
"Benno Weis - Torah cantillation: Metzora-Bechukotay, Chukat-Mas'ey",
track "60 Mattot 4-5"), Benno Weis a'h' leined "v'hareimosa" with a
qadma.
A gut'n Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom
and all the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
MG
> by a kadma requires that the geresh be meliel, not that there are two
> differnent te'amim.
> This is an extremely puzzling statement. You find kadma v'azla where
> the azla is milrah, obviously, everywhere. So I'm not following what
> you mean here. Please explain.
> I'm not talking about where there is a kadma anyway.
> I wasn't talking about Kadma either, so I'm not sure what you're confusion is.
by a kadma, the geresh is mileil. You are talking about where a
geresh is prceded by Kadma, aren't you? My confusion is from the fact
that this is a false statement. TAccording to you, there is only
"azla". Or "geresh", whatever you want to call it. When it is
preceded by kadma it can take mileil or milrah forms. But when there
is no kadma, it magically ony takes a mileil form. Why?
> What I am saying is that it is not the nature of the trup that depends on where it is on the word, but the nature of the mesharet (if any) that will precede it. <
First we need to see what kind of mafsiq we need on a particular word,
then the proper mesharet follows. And a word will not change to
mileil or milrah based on it's own trup, certainly not based on what
kind of a mesharet it has! Mileil or milrah is inherent in the word,
obviously. Explain to me the thought process / rationale of choosing
these particular trop, according to you, and how coincidentally every
azla without a kadma happens to be mileil.
On Jul 9, 1:18 pm, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:
Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon
> > by a kadma requires that the geresh be meliel, not that there are two
> > differnent te'amim.
>
> > This is an extremely puzzling statement. You find kadma v'azla where
> > the azla is milrah, obviously, everywhere. So I'm not following what
> > you mean here. Please explain.
> > I'm not talking about where there is a kadma anyway.
>
> > I wasn't talking about Kadma either, so I'm not sure what you're
> confusion is.
>
> Reread your own statement. I'll paraphrase: when a geresh is preceded
> by a kadma, the geresh is mileil. You are talking about where a
> geresh is prceded by Kadma, aren't you? My confusion is from the fact
> that this is a false statement. TAccording to you, there is only
> "azla". Or "geresh", whatever you want to call it. When it is
> preceded by kadma it can take mileil or milrah forms. But when there
> is no kadma, it magically ony takes a mileil form. Why?
I see your problem with my earlier statement. I assume I meant "isn't preceded by a kadma." Now, all I'll say is that I just don't see this fact as particularly significant. Why is this rule about the possible meshartim based on the placement of the melech so perplexing?
>
> > What I am saying is that it is not the nature of the trup that
> depends on where it is on the word, but the nature of the mesharet (if
> any) that will precede it. <
>
> That's ridiculous. The mafsiq is the determinant, not the mesharet!
> First we need to see what kind of mafsiq we need on a particular word,
> then the proper mesharet follows. And a word will not change to
> mileil or milrah based on it's own trup, certainly not based on what
> kind of a mesharet it has! Mileil or milrah is inherent in the word,
> obviously. Explain to me the thought process / rationale of choosing
> these particular trop, according to you, and how coincidentally every
> azla without a kadma happens to be mileil.
>
>
OK, let me restate what I am saying, which may or may not be quite the same as what I said before. For a word to get a geresh, one of two things must be true. Either it must have a word before it that takes some mesharet, or it must be mileil. If it is milera, and has no preceding word to take a mesharet, the word would not get a geresh, but rather some other low level mafsik.
Jeremy
MG
kadmah the word is "required" to be mileil. Your words. So what's
the rule? If kadma then mileil or milrah, if no kadma then always
milrah? The placement of ta'amim simply don't work that way. The
presence or absence of a mesharet doesn't drive anything with respect
to the underlying word of the mafsiq.
I'm just going to move on and assume you wrote something you didn't
intend here.
> OK, let me restate what I am saying, which may or may not be quite the same as what I said before. For a word to get a geresh, one of two things must be true. Either it must have a word before it that takes some mesharet, or it must be mileil. If it is milera, and has no preceding word to take a mesharet, the word would not get a geresh, but rather some other low level mafsik.
a gershayim, which is the same level mafsik. Read your last
statement, it's frankly astonishing. The mafsiqim are in their places
because that's where the pauses are, period (no pun intended). You
are seriously saying that if a word is milrah and has no mesharet that
we change the level of mafsik to a lower level? Never.
Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon
Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine (Emergency Medicine)
Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Bioethics
Columbia University
----- Original Message -----
From: MG <markgi...@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, July 9, 2010 3:01 pm
Subject: [leining] Re: Qadma on Last Letter?
To: leining <lei...@googlegroups.com>
> > I see your problem with my earlier statement. I assume I meant
> "isn't preceded by a kadma." Now, all I'll say is that I just don't
> see this fact as particularly significant. Why is this rule about the
> possible meshartim based on the placement of the melech so perplexing?
>
> This still makes no sense. So when a geresh ISN'T preceded by a
> kadmah the word is "required" to be mileil. Your words. So what's
> the rule? If kadma then mileil or milrah, if no kadma then always
> milrah? The placement of ta'amim simply don't work that way. The
> presence or absence of a mesharet doesn't drive anything with respect
> to the underlying word of the mafsiq.
> I'm just going to move on and assume you wrote something you didn't
> intend here.
I really don' tunderstand why you think that I think that meshartim are driving anything here. I don't think that because I know as well as you that it isn't true. But as you are moving on, I will too.
> > OK, let me restate what I am saying, which may or may not be quite
> the same as what I said before. For a word to get a geresh, one of two
> things must be true. Either it must have a word before it that takes
> some mesharet, or it must be mileil. If it is milera, and has no
> preceding word to take a mesharet, the word would not get a geresh,
> but rather some other low level mafsik.
>
> False. If the word is milrah and has no preceding mesharet it will get
> a gershayim, which is the same level mafsik. Read your last
> statement, it's frankly astonishing. The mafsiqim are in their places
> because that's where the pauses are, period (no pun intended). You
> are seriously saying that if a word is milrah and has no mesharet that
> we change the level of mafsik to a lower level? Never.
>
I didn't say lowER level mafsik, I said low level, meaning the same level as geresh. Sorry if this wasn't clear.
Jeremy
MG
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20568&st=&pgnum=51&hilite=
And here is The Siach Yitzchak, brother of the Taz:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22734&st=&pgnum=127&hilite=
And here as well, Sefer Mesoras Hakriah:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33823&st=&pgnum=11&hilite=
Here it's even more explicit:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7124&st=&pgnum=194&hilite=
So there are many more besides Hanau (and of course the list that's in
every chumash).
On Jul 9, 3:20 pm, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:
Yisroel D. Berger
| I agree with Mark regarding there being two separate notes- 1 a kadma-v'azla and a 2nd one azla geireish, with each having a unique sound (which as Mark duly noted- why have two different names if they have the same niggun? also they are sort of like two separate symbols, inasmuch as azla geireish only comes without the kadma's presence). However I take issue with his statement that an azla doesn't fall on a mileil word. see 'vayavei kayin', in beraishis 4:3 where it's meleil. lest you say this is another example of your idea that it's a kadma followed by an azla geireish, I saw the "mesoras hakriah" (it's in front of TKS) there which refers to a pasuk in lech lecha & there he specifically says the word kayin in beraishis is an azla. so in reference to the name of this thread, there's no reason a kadma can't be on the last letter, it would be on top of it, as opposed to at the end of it like a pashta. good shabbos. yd berger |
Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon
> lest you say this is another example of your idea that it's a kadma
> followed by an azla geireish, I saw the "mesoras hakriah" (it's in
> front of TKS) there which refers to a pasuk in lech lecha & there he
> specifically says the word kayin in beraishis is an azla.
> so in reference to the name of this thread, there's no reason a kadma
> can't be on the last letter, it would be on top of it, as opposed to
> at the end of it like a pashta.
> good shabbos.
> yd berger
Jeremy
MG
does distinguish between the two names and says the difference is
mileil vs. milrah. However, I can't find the reference to Vayavei
Kayin that YD is referring to. It's not on the posuk itself.
On Jul 9, 6:36 pm, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:
MG
on 19:14.
He does call it a "kadma veazla", but I'm not sure how much you can
read into that in light of what he says in the hakdama, as linked
previously. Perhaps here he is quoting the Divrei Emes (?) and that
isn't his personal view, or he's not being medakdek on the term. But
it certianly reads like he's calling it an azla. Good catch.
Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon
As for the particular question of why the trup lists (which may well have influenced R. Segal, R. Henau and anyone else) would have a listing for "azla" and "azla geresh" if they are the same, one hypothesis that occured to me over the weekend is that it is based on a misunderstanding of the sources. In some early sources a kadma was called an azla. Therefore, what we call a kadma v'azla used to be an azla (v')geresh. Nw obviously, if you aer familiar with a kadma v'azla and then come across a reference to an "azla v'geresh" you won't understand this as meaning Kadma v'azla (though that is what it is fact did mean). You will be puzzled, and think about the term. Now, the term means, more or less "a divorced azla". One might then conclude that there is a ta'am, in addition to the azla that follows a kadma, named azla geresh, distinguished by the fact that it is divorced from any mesharet. Note that I have no evidence for this hypothesis, but it seems quite plausible an
d would explain the late appearence of this trup.
Jeremy
----- Original Message -----
From: MG <markgi...@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, July 9, 2010 5:08 pm
Subject: [leining] Re: Qadma on Last Letter?
To: leining <lei...@googlegroups.com>
MG
other areas, as they do with respect to the Shva Merachef. I don't
think the GR"A just fell for something he read in Hanau, or got
confused when he saw "azla v'geresh" and got thrown off course, or
just used the list of ta'amim in a chumash and had no further mesorah
on the matter. Hanau himself quotes two others who predated him (one
being Bachur) who give alternate reasons for these two names. And if
we are going to discount all of these Achronim, we certainly can also
discount the modern writers who may have had their own "wrong"
influences.
If I'm not mistaken I recall the Yeminite list of the ta'amim also had
two different names for these trup; is that corrupt as well?
On Jul 11, 6:01 am, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.si...@nyu.edu>
wrote:
Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: MG <markgi...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, July 11, 2010 9:20 am
Subject: [leining] Re: Qadma on Last Letter?
To: leining <lei...@googlegroups.com>
> All of those sources were quite capable of rejecting Hanau in many
> other areas, as they do with respect to the Shva Merachef. I don't
> think the GR"A just fell for something he read in Hanau, or got
> confused when he saw "azla v'geresh" and got thrown off course, or
> just used the list of ta'amim in a chumash and had no further mesorah
> on the matter. Hanau himself quotes two others who predated him (one
> being Bachur) who give alternate reasons for these two names. And if
> we are going to discount all of these Achronim, we certainly can also
> discount the modern writers who may have had their own "wrong"
> influences.
I didn't say that the GR"A necessarily followed hanau without thought, just that as a later source, he may not be independent confirmation. Although he certailny could reject hanau, he mihgt not have, in this case. As for Moderns, I am certainly willing to disocunt them when appropriate. It's just that it in this case the early sources agree. Also, these moderns tend to be aware of the acharonim so there is usually a reason they have been rejected. Though I have not read anything on this particular subject. I shall ask/look around though.
> If I'm not mistaken I recall the Yeminite list of the ta'amim also had
> two different names for these trup; is that corrupt as well?
It certainly could be, though I will grant that Teimanim tend to have strong mesorahs. But I would like to see it first. I cna say that this morning I checked an Eidot Hamizrach list (in that edition of Tuv Ta'am byt machon simanim) and it only has one ta'am here, not the two we have been debating.
Jeremy