The trop (cantillation) for the 10 Statements (Commandments) is different
when chanted in the congregation than when an individual is chanting on
his own.
What is the meaning or reason for this? How is the public trop supposed to
resonate with the listener differently?
.
R' Alexander Seinfeld asked:
The trop (cantillation) for the 10 Statements (Commandments)
is different when chanted in the congregation than when an
individual is chanting on his own.
What is the meaning or reason for this? How is the public
trop supposed to resonate with the listener differently?
I wish I could remember where I heard this, but here is what I heard:
Let's take "lo tirtzach", for example. When an individual reads it,
the trop is "mercha tipcha", one single solid straightforward command:
"Don't murder!" (or kill or however you prefer to translate it)
But when the community reads it, the trop is different, and the tipcha
is now on the first word, causing a slight pause: "Lo - tirtzach!"
This resonates (to use RAS's word) in an entirely different manner. In
this particular case, it was suggested to me, that the tzibur (more
specifically the court) is is sometimes obligated to do that which is
normally assur. "Lo! [No! Wait! wait, pause, think, decide... okay, on
this particular occasion:] Tirtzach!"
Consider the eleven words that comprise Shemos 20:13. When the
individual reads it, there's only one "sof pasuk". But for the public,
there are four. One pasuk vs four pesukim has got to resonate
differently (though I don't recall the messages right now).
Akiva Miller
R' Alexander Seinfeld wrote:
The trop (cantillation) for the 10 Statements (Commandments) is different
when chanted in the congregation than when an individual is chanting on
his own.What is the meaning or reason for this? How is the public trop supposed to
resonate with the listener differently?
Very simple, so that each dibbera is one passuk. Which is why those who
want to accentuate that Anokhi is a separate dibbera (actually a machloket)
do not use ta'am elyon for the first passuk.
Taam Elyon combines the first two dibros because they were heard mipi haGevurah.
Very simple, so that each dibbera is one passuk. Which is why those who
want to accentuate that Anokhi is a separate dibbera (actually a
machloket) do not use ta'am elyon for the first passuk.
RSZ writes:
Taam Elyon combines the first two dibros because they were heard mipi
haGevurah.
My limited understanding is that some view that reason as an after-the-fact
justification for the fact that they _should_ be two psukim. IIRC, Rav
Breuer has them as two psukim.
The problem arose because these psukim used to be printed with both sets of
ta'amim. (A lot of them were above the letter -- thus ta'am "elyon",
etc.). When they were disentangled into ta'am elyon and ta'am tachton, R
Breuer contends, a mistake was made.
One piece of circumstantial evidence: there is a rule that a segol has to
be the first melech-type trop of a pasuk, and that it must appear before
the esnachta -- but the versions that present the dibros as nine psukim
violate both of those rules.
(Granted, one could argue that this is a special circumstance and thus an
exception)
Might there be another piece of circumstantial evidence? I always
wondered: in what year/decade/century do we see the first suggestion that:
"it's nine psukim because ..."
Thoughts?
-- Sholom
RSZ writes:
Taam Elyon combines the first two dibros because they were heard mipi
haGevurah.
My limited understanding is that some view that reason as an
after-the-fact justification for the fact that they should be two
psukim. IIRC, Rav Breuer has them as two psukim.
...
Might there be another piece of circumstantial evidence? I always
wondered: in what year/decade/century do we see the first suggestion that:
"it's nine psukim because..."
We have other evidence thst they were always 10 pesuk until the error.
Someone wrote an article tracing when the error was made.
There is no point in trying t o justify an error.
: We have other evidence thst they were always 10 pesuk until the error.
: Someone wrote an article tracing when the error was made.
: There is no point in trying to justify an error.
Generalizing away from leining the 10 haDiberos...
At the end of the day, the RBSO arranged things so that for centuries now
Jews have been leining His 10 haDevarim (as Hashem calls them) as 9 pesuqim.
From a causal perspective, I agree with RSM. From a teleological one,
it's hard for me to dismiss that quickly a widely accepted minhag,
discussed by generations of gedolei Torah.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
What you say is not correct. Most Ashkenzim just follow what is in print,
no matter how you prove that it was a mistake on the printer's part.
You can be m'lammed zechus, but that is not the same as justifying it.
And the Teimanim have for 1,000 years been always reading it as 10, both
on Parshat Yitro and Parshat wa'ethchannan and on Shavu'ot. They had the
advantage of not being corrupted by the printed versions that changed it.
There are many other issues where you can properly use your teleology. But
a mistake remains a mistake according to halokho. It is still a meqqah
ta'ut.
The problem arose because these psukim used to be printed with both sets of ta'amim. (A lot of them were above the letter -- thus ta'am "elyon", etc.). When they were disentangled into ta'am elyon and ta'am tachton, R Breuer contends, a mistake was made.
Not unless this disentanglement happened centuries ago, which I don't think it did.
Might there be another piece of circumstantial evidence? I always wondered: in what year/decade/century do we see the first suggestion that: "it's nine psukim because ..."
No later than the Mas'es Binyomin (1530-1620). And it seems from his explanation that the "disentangled" versions did not yet exist, since his questioner can't make head or tail of the printed te'amim and he explains them one by one.
But the poskim who give the reason are not being melamed zechus, they are seriously explaining the reason for the minhag. They don't think it's a mistake, they assume that the minhag is correct. And this is not some modern phenomenon.
How do we know it was a mistake and not a deliberate decision? How do we know it wasn't he Temanim who made a mistake by reasoning that there ought to be 10, not 9? Isn't there a rule in girsa'os that it's the less obvious version that's more likely to be correct?
When were the two taamim first printed separately anyway? If it was after Mas'eis Binyamin then we know that couldn't be the source for the minhag.