What does the P'siq do

[rabbiri...@gmail.com]

In this week's Sidrah Huqqat 41:1

Vayishb | Mimenu

Simlarly In Qorach 16:7

Aleihen | Q'toret

In both cases we have a m'shareit followed by a P'siq

What is the function? Just a pause, or does it impact somhow the way we parse or phrase the passuq

Shalom
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

[Michael Poppers]

On Jun 16, 2:30 pm, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> In this week's Sidrah Huqqat 41:1

> ...
Undoubtedly, you meant to type 21 instead of 41.

> ...Vayishb | Mimenu

>
> Simlarly In Qorach 16:7
>
> Aleihen | Q'toret
>
> In both cases we have a m'shareit followed by a P'siq
>
> What is the function?  Just a pause, or does it impact somhow the way we parse or phrase the passuq
>

As we say in computers, "yes" :) (i.e. for "x OR y" to be true, either
x or y can be true).

Let's look first at another example: "H' | H'" (munach, p'siq, ZQ),
from the 13 Midos (Ex 34:6). In that case, CHaZaL (see RaShY ad loc.)
explain the pause one way, and Tos'fos (BT RH 17b), after quoting that
explanation, quote a different explanation from "M'gilas S'tarim" of
R'Nissim Gaon. In either case, the p'siq is considered crucial to the
understanding of the pasuq.

A favorite example of mine (because I often pass by St. Patrick's
Cathedral while walking from NY Penn to my office :)) is "shaqeitz |
t'shaq'tzenu v'saeiv | t'sa'avenu" (darga, p'siq, t'vir followed by
meircha, p'siq, tipcha). When I lein it, I feel these verb-doubled
phrases have a bit more drama with a slight pause between each pair of
words, but why shouldn't every verb-doubled phrase be graced with some
oomph? Off the top of my head, I don't recall a reason why the p'siq
occurs specifically with these phrases, but my thinking is that there
is a (or more than one) reason...and I would similarly suggest such
for the examples RRW just cited.

Does that mean the p'siq always impacts the meaning? Not necessarily
-- as I said before, "yes," i.e. it could just be a pause. I believe
one category of p'siq which is "just" a pause would be a p'siq after
the Sheim HaVaYaH, e.g. "vaya'avor H' | al panav" earlier in the noted
Ex 34:6. Earlier in that sedra (hey, it's my BM parasha, so I do
remember it rather well :)), we see the list of q'tores ingredients
beginning with "nataf | ushcheiles" (Ex 30:34) -- I think there may be
a reason for the separation, but even if there isn't one, a pause
there allows each ingredient a bit of "significance," even when its
noun is graced with a m'shareis.

I hope RRW's question and this response will provide further "food for
discussion" :).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

[Mark Symons]

The psik (pasek) only appears after a mesharet, because it's not needed after a mafsik. 

Breuer (Ta'amei Hamikra) - who treats its in his usual exhaustive way in his 27-page chapter on the subject - gives 6 basic categories, each of which has several sub-categories: 

(1)After Shem Shamayim. 

(2)Between successive items of a list - sometimes a pasek is the only way that all the items can be separated, because the rules of trop sequencing often mean that there aren't enough mafsikim to go round - eg in the list of the k'toret ingredients there are mafsikim between all the other ingredients apart from between nataf and sh'chelet - the only way to separate these is with a pasek 

(3)Between 2 words that have only a "kesher rofef" between them (ie the opposite of what you'd expect after a mesharet), and to highlight this. One subcategory here is where it functions like a colon introducing direct speech (eg Gn 18:15 - Vayomer: Lo [with an aleph] - the pause here also serving to differentiate it from Lo [with a vav]). Another is where there is a missing expected preposition to join the the 2 words. 

(4) Between 2 similar or identical words (eg Gn 39:10 - yom | yom, Gn 17:13 - himol |  yimol) - "...mistaber shepasek zeh nitkan rak l'noy hak'riyah ... hakoreh yafsik kim'a[ayin]h bein sh'tey hamilim, v'chach yadgish at hahachzara; v'hashome'a yavin shehad'varim lo nishnu bich'da[kamatz]y". 

(5) Between 2 identical letters - also for "noy hak'riyah" ie to prevent the letters being swallowed. 

(6) Other - where the basis isn't clear, though he speculates on possible reasons. Here he includes Vayishb | mimenu - and suggests that it is related to the unusual form of the word ie 2 successive sh'va nach's after an accented chirik. 

He says that where a pasek comes between a munach and a revia, it converts the munach into a munach legarmei, but this still serves the same function as a pasek.

Mark

[Sammy Noe]

The first one is probably to enable the "beis" and "mem" be pronounced more clearly.   The second, which I have between "vohein" and "aish", is a legarmeh before the pozer.   Kind regards   Sammy --- On Wed, 16/6/10, rabbiri...@gmail.com <rabbiri...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

[MG]

> The second, which I have between "vohein" and "aish", is a legarmeh before the pozer.

Hmmm. Speaking from memory here, but I think someone says this is not
a legarmeh. (pretty sure it's either Wickes or Heidenheim?).
Also, there is a Mesorah Gedolah somewhere that says there are only 2
times where are legarmeh comes before a pazer, and neither are in the
Torah.
If you hold this to be a legarmeh, do you in fact lein it with the
legarmeh tune?

On Jun 17, 7:32 am, Sammy Noe <leining...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The first one is probably to enable the "beis" and "mem" be pronounced more clearly.
>  
> The second, which I have between "vohein" and "aish", is a legarmeh before the pozer.
>  
> Kind regards
>  
> Sammy
>

> --- On Wed, 16/6/10, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [leining] What does the P'siq do
> To: "Leining" <lei...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Wednesday, 16 June, 2010, 18:30
>
> In this week's Sidrah Huqqat 41:1
>
> Vayishb | Mimenu
>
> Simlarly In Qorach 16:7
>
> Aleihen | Q'toret
>
> In both cases we have a m'shareit followed by a P'siq
>
> What is the function?  Just a pause, or does it impact somhow the way we parse or phrase the passuq
>
> Shalom
> RRW
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> --
> 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.

[Sammy Noe]

Mark   Are you saying that there are only 2 legarmehs before the pozer throughout Tanach?   I think there may even two legarmeihs in one possuk in the Toiroh! Maybe in the ta'amei ho'elyoin in Yisroi?   BTW, I'd like to see R Breuer's assertion that this is a pessik too, because I'm sure I've learned differently: and why should you pause between "sh'nayhem m'lay'im"?   And, yes I do lein it legarmeh before a pozer, and taught it.   Kind regards   Sammy --- On Thu, 17/6/10, MG <markgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

[MG]

Sammy -

> Are you saying that there are only 2 legarmehs before the pozer throughout Tanach?
> I think there may even two legarmeihs in one possuk in the Toiroh! Maybe in the ta'amei ho'elyoin in Yisroi?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying, and I would maintain that
those in the ta'am haelyon and other places before a pazer are not
legarmeh either.

> BTW, I'd like to see R Breuer's assertion that this is a pessik too, because I'm sure I've learned differently: and why should you pause between "sh'nayhem m'lay'im"?

I don't have Rav Breuer's sefer. I didn't say he said it was a
paseik...can anyone here who has sefer let us know if he opines on
this?

> And, yes I do lein it legarmeh before a pozer, and taught it.

Well, if you lein it with the legarmeih tune, then you at least are
being consistent.

[MG]

Sammy -

Heidenheim, in his משפטי הטעמים page 7B says (translating, of course):
"Every legarmeh in scripture comes before a reviah except for a few
places that are listed in this sefer in the "Sha'ar Halegarmeh".
Further on, on Page 34A, he lists only two places where it comes
before a pazer, in Daniel 3:2 and Nechemia 8:7.
I would bet that the Mesorah Gedolah on one of these two places is the
one I referred to earlier that says that a legarmeh comes before a
Pazer on only 2 occasions.
Heidenheim also lists 11 places where the legarmeh comes before a
kadma-veazla, 3 before a pashta, and one before a tevir, and ends off
by saying, effectively, that aside from what he has listed, there are
no other times that a legarmeh comes before anything other than a
revia.

[rjhe...@juno.com]

Sammy / Mark and others

1)SAMMY: There are 10 reasons for a psik. One is to separate similar sounding letters (VayISHB | Mimenu). But some are grammatical: e.g. "what is your name: Vayomer | Yaakov" Breuer explains "Vayomer Yaakov" without a Psik means "Jacob said" while "Vayomer | Yaakov" (with a psik) means "He said, "Jacob"". Here the Psik changes the grammatical FUNCTION of Yaakov from SUBJECT to OBJECT of the verb. Neat!

2)MARK: (I am writing from memory) But there are 15 LEGARMAYS NOT before a Revii in Tanakh (Breuer Edition 1). 3 of them occur in Leining (So baal kriah has to know it). One occurs by Machalath (End of Toledoth). A second occurs by Rashaychem Al Tifrau (Shemini) (Cant remember the 3rd now).

NOTE: It is a common "cheat" to act like ALL PSIKS deal with similar sounding letters (or double words like Hakarayv | hakarayv in Korach). Don't knock the grammatical function of the psik which is "cool"

Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.rashiyomi.com

____________________________________________________________
700% Gains - Penny Stocks
Subscribe for Free to the Best Penny Stock Newsletter in the World!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c1a46571133e450103st01duc

[MG]

Yes, I quoted Heidenheim who lists 15 total. So we agree on that,
Russell.
The other you're not remembering is "Asher yutzak al rosho shemen
hamishcha" in Emor.
Also, "Veshaim Shnei Banav Machlon V'Chilyon" in Ruth: a baal koreh
needs to know that too.

[rabbiri...@gmail.com]

The second, which I have between "vohein" and "aish", is a legarmeh before the pozer. Kind regards 

Sammy»

Not that one I was refering to the kadma v'azla later on "aliehen | Q'toret"

I was NOT intending to address munach l'garmeih

[rabbiri...@gmail.com]

Sammy
«why should you pause between "sh'nayhem m'lay'im"?»

Simple
Consecutive Mem's

[Sammy Noe]

Hi mark   I have a sefer called "Ta'amei Hamikro" by R Shmuel Weinfeld in a third edition Eshkol (which he owned at the time) 1980.   In it, he says that the legarmeh is followed by the pozer, as well as the revi'a, pashto, t'vir and geresh, but he doesn't say where in Tanach: since I've never seen the legarmeh followed by pashto, t'vir and geresh in Toiroh, I assumed, hopefully fairly, that these are in Nach; having seen a line in front of the pozer several times in Toiroh following a munach shape, I immediately assumed, this time perhaps incorrectly, that all these munach shapes are legarmeh, and that the line is not a pessik, in the same way as I has always said that it is not a pessik in front of the rev'ia.   I have a copy of "Mishp'tei Hat'omim" by Heidenheim, and will look again in those areas indicated by you, but also elsewhere.   Meanwhile thanks for taking time out pointing it out to me.

Kind regards   Sammy --- On Thu, 17/6/10, MG <markgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: MG <markgi...@yahoo.com> Subject: [leining] Re: What does the P'siq do To: "leining" <lei...@googlegroups.com>

[Sammy Noe]

"3 of them occur in Leining (So baal kriah has to know it). One occurs by Machalath (End of Toledoth).  A second occurs by Rashaychem Al Tifrau (Shemini)"

I really must get this sefer by R Breuer (It's my birthday soon, so I'll add it to the ever growing list for my admirers): so far as I have always known, that "machalas" (I'm glad you gave the "mem" a "kamatz godoil", by the way) is a munach followed by a p'sik, as the following note is a kadmoh.   As to the one in Sh'mini, again it is followed by a "mahpach" (remember that word?), so, again, that munach shape is that of a munach, followed by a p'sik.   Kind regards   Sammy --- On Thu, 17/6/10, rjhe...@juno.com <rjhe...@juno.com> wrote:

From: rjhe...@juno.com <rjhe...@juno.com> Subject: [leining] What does the P'siq do To: lei...@googlegroups.com Cc: rjhe...@juno.com Date: Thursday, 17 June, 2010, 15:58

Sammy / Mark and others 1)SAMMY: There are 10 reasons for a psik. One is to separate similar sounding letters (VayISHB | Mimenu). But some are grammatical: e.g. "what is your name: Vayomer | Yaakov" Breuer explains "Vayomer Yaakov" without a Psik means "Jacob said" while "Vayomer | Yaakov" (with a psik) means "He said, "Jacob"". Here the Psik changes the grammatical FUNCTION of Yaakov from SUBJECT to OBJECT of the verb. Neat!

2)MARK: (I am writing from memory) But there are 15 LEGARMAYS NOT before a Revii in Tanakh (Breuer Edition 1).  (Cant remember the 3rd now).

NOTE: It is a common "cheat" to act like ALL PSIKS deal with similar sounding letters (or double words like Hakarayv | hakarayv in Korach). Don't knock the grammatical function of the psik which is "cool" Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.rashiyomi.com ____________________________________________________________ 700% Gains - Penny Stocks Subscribe for Free to the Best Penny Stock Newsletter in the World! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c1a46571133e450103st01duc

[MG]

Happy to help. I have the sefer as well. He means that a legarmeh
CAN come before those ta'amim, and never before any others, But the
exact list is presented by Heidenheim (and I'm sure Wickes has
something to say about it).
The legarmeh before the geresh in the Torah is "Machalas bas Yishmael
ben Avraham (in Ber 28:40) as Russell pointed out.
Before the pashta it is Rashaychem Al Tifrau (Shemini) and Asher

yutzak al rosho shemen hamishcha in Emor.

The rest are in Nach.
There is also one time in Nach (don't recall where) where the line in
front of a munach, although coming before a reviah, is a paseik and
not a legarmeh.

[Sammy Noe]

Yes, I know but I have a Tanach edited by Dotan via Ben Osher's Leningrad text ( printed in 5733, from a text completed in 4770), which only has the one, and that is between "vohein" and "aish": I have, in any case, to think about returning to the drawing board yet again, as apparently, according to Heidenheim and others, the munach shape under "vohein" is not a legarmeh.    Kind regards   Sammy

--- On Thu, 17/6/10, rabbiri...@gmail.com <rabbiri...@gmail.com> wrote:

[MG]

Heidenheim and others are looking at the next Mafsiq, not the next
ta'am. There are examples (can't think of any now) of a legarmeh
followed by a dargah munach revia -- one needs to look at the first
mafsieq immediately following the line to determine whether it is
legarmeh or psik.
P.S. I also want this sefer by Rav Breuer!!

On Jun 17, 2:02 pm, Sammy Noe <leining...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "3 of them occur in Leining (So baal kriah has to know it). One occurs by Machalath (End of Toledoth).  A second occurs by Rashaychem Al Tifrau (Shemini)"
>  
> I really must get this sefer by R Breuer (It's my birthday soon, so I'll add it to the ever growing list for my admirers): so far as I have always known, that "machalas" (I'm glad you gave the "mem" a "kamatz godoil", by the way) is a munach followed by a p'sik, as the following note is a kadmoh.
>  
> As to the one in Sh'mini, again it is followed by a "mahpach" (remember that word?), so, again, that munach shape is that of a munach, followed by a p'sik.
>  
> Kind regards
>  
> Sammy
>

> --- On Thu, 17/6/10, rjhen...@juno.com <rjhen...@juno.com> wrote:

>
> From: rjhen...@juno.com <rjhen...@juno.com>
> Subject: [leining] What does the P'siq do
> To: lei...@googlegroups.com
> Cc: rjhen...@juno.com
> Date: Thursday, 17 June, 2010, 15:58
>
> Sammy / Mark and others
>
> 1)SAMMY: There are 10 reasons for a psik. One is to separate similar sounding letters (VayISHB | Mimenu). But some are grammatical: e.g. "what is your name: Vayomer | Yaakov" Breuer explains "Vayomer Yaakov" without a Psik means "Jacob said" while "Vayomer | Yaakov" (with a psik) means "He said, "Jacob"". Here the Psik changes the grammatical FUNCTION of Yaakov from SUBJECT to OBJECT of the verb. Neat!
>
> 2)MARK: (I am writing from memory) But there are 15 LEGARMAYS NOT before a Revii in Tanakh (Breuer Edition 1).  (Cant remember the 3rd now).
>
> NOTE: It is a common "cheat" to act like ALL PSIKS deal with similar sounding letters (or double words like Hakarayv | hakarayv in Korach). Don't knock the grammatical function of the psik which is "cool"
>
> Russell Jay Hendel;http://www.rashiyomi.com
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 700% Gains - Penny Stocks

> Subscribe for Free to the Best Penny Stock Newsletter in the World!http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c1a46571133e450103st01duc

>
> --
> 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.

[Sammy Noe]

I like this idea, but how about the other myriad situations which should demand this "separation" and don't get it: "b'chol l'vov'cho", for instance, is an instant example.   Given the dreadfullly irresponsible lack of care taken by ba'alei k'riah in the round, I would think that the better publiahers should now always put a line between two similar sounding words, as for instance B'midbar 19:13, even though "oid" has a tipcho, and should be regarded as already separate from the "tes" of "tum'osoi"   Kind regards   Sammy

--- On Thu, 17/6/10, rabbiri...@gmail.com <rabbiri...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

[Sammy Noe]

What I seem to have misunderstood is that the geresh and the pashto are not IMMEDIATELY following the the legarmeh, but come at the end of the phrase immediately following the legarmeh.   I have a favourite wall against which I bang my head when I realise that I've been less than clever; give me a few moments while I address it again.   Sammy

--- On Thu, 17/6/10, MG <markgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Sammy Noe]

Hi Mark   I have now had a look at Heidenheim, in particular your 34B, and I'm (not) afraid to take issue with you.   Heidenheim begins the legarmeh to be followed by a revi'a, as, FOR EXAMPLE (my capitals) B'reshis 3:15,Sh'mois 30:13, and Yirm'yoh 7:14.   But we both know that there are many more examples than just these three, the sidra Nosoi is choking with it!   Heidenhem then continues with the pozer following the legarmeh, and again says FOR INSTANCE, in Doniel 3:2, and Nechemyoh 8:7.   This cannot be a complete list, and I am now more than ever persuaded that the munach shape followed by a stick and followed by a pozer is actually a legarmeh, wherever in Tanach it'll be.   If you were to ask why Heidenheim doesn't quote any examples in Toiroh, I can tell you that a) in the exhaustive lists Heidenheim does follow with ( and they are exhaustive because he does not say "for example" and he does explicitly state that "this is the lot, folks"), he does not quote them in any specific order, and even for three with the t'vir they're not in specific order; why, then, should he feel impelled to quote from the Toiroh - if he says "for instance" - surely one is given the template by the examples Heidenheim gives, and if the pattern appears anywhere else, then one now knows how to address it.   And b) - if these are the only two legarmeh pozer throughout Tanach, you know as well as I do that there are several elsewhere, including the Ten Commandments in Yisroi -  twice in the same dibbur; what are the signals in those situations to inform one that the stick is actually a p'sik and not a legarmeh stick?!   As pleased as I was actually to be corrected by you, I am just as pleased to go back as I was, and do every munach shape, which is followed by a stick and pozer as a legameh.   Kind regards

Sammy --- On Thu, 17/6/10, MG <markgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: MG <markgi...@yahoo.com> Subject: [leining] Re: What does the P'siq do To: "leining" <lei...@googlegroups.com>

[MG]

Well, your tenacity, at least, is to be admired.
However, you are simply incorrect.

Hedenheim says clearly on 7B: "EVERY legarmeh in scripture comes
before a reviah EXCEPT FOR A FEW PLACES THAT ARE LISTED IN THIS SEFER

in the "Sha'ar Halegarmeh".

I would urge you to read that in the original.
Please find me where in his sefer he lists those places. I'll save
you the time: he lists all of those places on 34A. The list is
exhaustive, as much as you would like to twist his words to suit you.
If you believe the list is not exhaustive, then you need to answer
what he says clearly on 7B. There is no way he would use the word
"muatim" to describe these exceptions if there were hundreds of
exceptions.

Your question of why he would choose 2 examples from Daniel and
Nechemia, when according to you there are hundreds in the Torah,
remains unanswered. Your "proof" that since he doesn't list the
others "in order" therefore he didn't feel compelled to bring any from
the Torah is illogical.

As to how one knows whether something is Legarmeh or something is a
psik: thankfully there is Hedienheim, and others, to tell us clearly.

Furthermore, the Mesorah Ketana on Daniel 3:2 says: "ב' בטע' לגר"
meaning there are only 2 legarmes before a pazer in existence. For
the sake of intellectual honesty, please look it up. You'll have to
answer that for me.

I'm sorry, but the numerous munach's followed by a line before a pazer
in the Torah, including the Aseres Hadibros, are just p'siks.

Someone else mentioned that Breuer also claims there are only a few
times when a munach with a line before something other than a revia is
s legarmeh. I don't have the sefer, but can anyone else chime in and
settle this dispute?

[Mark Symons]

Someone else mentioned that Breuer also claims there are only a few
times when a munach with a line before something other than a revia is
s legarmeh.  I don't have the sefer, but can anyone else chime in and
settle this dispute?

I have BREUER - he states that there are 2 places where a legarmei appears in a "y'chida peshuta" (by which I think he means a 2 word sub-phrase) ending with a PAZER - though he says, that - similar to the case of legarmei in a "y'chida peshuta" ending in a revia - the legarmei is "eyno ela tachalif shel munach ufasek" - which I understand to mean serving the same function as pasek, though obviously sung differently. These 2 places are Daniel 3:2 and Nehemia 8:7.

He states that there are 12 places where legarmei occurs as part of a sequence of servants of a GERESH, or it's "tachalif" (ie what is commonly called azla - nearly all the examples he gives are before the kadma-azla sequence; one is followed by kadma-darga-tevir [Isaiah 36:2]). He says that in all these places, the legarmei comes bimkom t'lisha-ketana ufasek.

Mark Symons

[Sammy Noe]

Hi Mark   I saw that page 7B before I found your page 34A, and I gave it due consideration before I wrote my note yesterday.   What he wrote in 7B is exactly as you say, and what he wrote in 34A is exactly as I say: the two are totally reconcilable, without you have to lend yourself to insulting terms in impugning my integrity.   As I am one of those who actually does vocally agree that I am wrong - so precious few of us precious ones - the last time, so far as this forum is concerned, being last Thursday evening (UK time), I consulted various people, all of whom agreed with me about the word "c'goin", which has always meant "for example", and "example" has always only meant illustrating a rule.   I didn't try anything "twisted" as you said, because I didn't/don't have to.   Sammy

--- On Sun, 20/6/10, MG <markgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[MG]

Sammy -
If you were insulted, my apologies. That wasn't my intent, and I do
appreciate the challenge.
We can continue to argue over the language Heidenheim uses, but that
appears futile (FYI I checked my copy of "Em Lamkirah" last night and
he concurs with my reading of Heidenheim).
Please see this link from the sefer Tuv Ta'am from the well-known
medakdek R' Eliahu Bachur (you may have to start from middle of the
prior page to get the gist):
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20911&st=&pgnum=316&hilite=

Here he says clearly that the legarmeh only precedes the pazer twice
in scripture. He doesn't even list the places, just that they are
enumerated in the Masorah.

On Jun 21, 3:41 am, Sammy Noe <leining...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Mark
>