Why, in each of the seven instances in the Tanach, does the Shalsheleth
appear on the first word of the sentence?
The shalsheles serves a role similar to that of a zakeif gadol; much as the
zakeif gadol replaces the zakeif katon within a one-word secondary division
of a passuk that has no room for a preceding pashta, y'tiv, or munach
(unless said one word is very short or very long), so, too, the shalsheles
replaces the segol within a one-word secondary division that has no room for
a preceding zarka. Since segol is only used at the head of a chain of
secondary phrases (each of which, save the last, is concluded by a zakeif),
it follows logically that shalsheles would only be used as a ta'am in a
one-word initial secondary phrase, making it the first word in the passuk.
- Josh
Joshua Meisner wrote:
Why, in each of the seven instances in the *Tanach*, does the *Shalsheleth
*appear on the first word of the sentence?The shalsheles serves a role similar to that of a zakeif gadol; much as the
zakeif gadol replaces the zakeif katon within a one-word secondary
this I get because the zakeif gadol is frequently in mid-passuk
division
of a passuk that has no room for a preceding pashta, y'tiv, or munach
(unless said one word is very short or very long), so, too, the shalsheles
replaces the segol
What's your source? Also, how would one know that the it is a segol that the shalsheles is replacing? I think shalsheles is followed each time by a pesik (vertical line), which is not the case with a segol.
within a one-word secondary division
this I _don't_ get: what makes the word on which the shalsheles is installed "a secondary division"?
that has no room for
a preceding zarka. Since segol is only used at the head
Do you mean "end"?
of a chain of
secondary phrases (each of which, save the last, is concluded by a zakeif),
it follows logically that shalsheles would only be used as a ta'am in a
one-word initial secondary phrase, making it the first word in the passuk.- Josh
Noach Witty
RNW wrote:
I think shalsheles is followed each time by a pesik (vertical line),
which is not the case with a segol <
I read/learned somewhere that because a [type of] shalsheles is a m'shareis
in sifrei EMeTH, it's separated from the next ta'am in the Torah to ensure
that it's considered a mafsiq, even though in the other s'farim (including
chamishei chumshei Torah) it's [always] a mafsiq.
All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
replaces the segol
What's your source? Also, how would one know that the it is a segol that
the shalsheles is replacing? I think shalsheles is followed each time by a
pesik (vertical line), which is not the case with a segol.
I don't know what sort of primary source would have this information, but
I've seen this idea mentioned in a number of secondary sources. The line
following the shalsheles may not be a p'sik (I've also been told such about
the line following a munach l'garmeih); the presence of a p'sik, at any
rate, is often (usually?) to separate between words that could be read in a
heretical manner (e.g., Ya'eir HaShem / panav eilecha opposes the potential
reading of that places the Sheim as an object with an implied subject,
rather than as the Subject), and is then unrelated to the grammatical
structure of the passuk.
within a one-word secondary division
this I *don't* get: what makes the word on which the shalsheles is
installed "a secondary division"?
I originally didn't want to digress too much on the list, but I provided a
little more information on this concept on my blog (
http://haprozdor.blogspot.com/2008/12/use-of-shalsheles.html ). To provide
an example of the concepts I described there, take Bereishis 39:8:
"Vayma'ein vayomer el eishes adonav hen adoni lo yada iti ma ba-bayis v'chol
asher yesh lo nasan b'yadi."
The primary division of the passuk, indicated by the esnachta, is after the
word ba-bayis. The axis of the passuk around which the division is made is
the linkage between the compound statement of Yosef: yada vs. nasan. The
secondary divisions of the first half of the passuk, are on the words
vayma'ein, adonav, adoni, and iti. The tipecha on iti divides prepositional
indirect object of Yosef's statement from the direct object, the zakeif on
adoni divides the subject from the predicate, the zakeif on adonav separates
the lead-up to Yosef's statement to his words, and the shalsheles on
vayma'ein separates between the two verbs of the main part of the verse
(vayma'ein and vayomer). The only tertiary division within the passuk is
the pashta on vayomer, which separates between the implied subject and verb
of the passuk and the direct object. It would be easier to understand with
diagrams, I'm sure (and I don't understand the system entirely, myself, to
explain it well). I've been told that Rav Breuer's /Ta'amei Hamikra
Bekaf-aleph Sefarim Uv'sifrei Eme"t/ is a wonderful resource on the topic.
/Chanting the Hebrew Bible: The Art of Cantillation/ by Joshua Jacobson has
many examples of the concepts.
that has no room for
a preceding zarka. Since segol is only used at the head
Do you mean "end"?
A theoretical primary subdivision of a passuk (i.e., before or after an
esnachta) could contain the sequence of secondary disjunctives
segol-zakeif-zakeif-tipecha, with tertiary and quaternary disjunctives and
conjunctives interspersed.
Sorry for the lack of more concrete information, but I hope this sheds more
light on the issues.
- Josh
--=====================_204484160==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
2008/12/1 Noah Witty <<mailto:nwitty@optonline.net>nwitty@optonline.net>
replaces the segol
What's your source? Also, how would one know that the it is a segol
that the shalsheles is replacing? I think shalsheles is followed
each time by a pesik (vertical line), which is not the case with a segol.I don't know what sort of primary source would have this
information, but I've seen this idea mentioned in a number of
secondary sources. The line following the shalsheles may not be a
p'sik (I've also been told such about the line following a munach
l'garmeih); the presence of a p'sik, at any rate, is often
(usually?) to separate between words that could be read in a
heretical manner (e.g., Ya'eir HaShem / panav eilecha opposes the
potential reading of that places the Sheim as an object with an
implied subject, rather than as the Subject), and is then unrelated
to the grammatical structure of the passuk.
FWIW, I have a vague recollection of R Seth Mandel mentioning that
one of the Tosafists, perhaps it was Rabbeinu Tam?, wrote about the
rules of trope, which are mechanical/algorithmic, as described in
this thread. (And I also specifically remember RSM mentioning that
there's a "rule" that a segol can not be the first mark of a pasuk,
and the four times it's needed in the first word, it's replaced by a
shalsheles).
So, no sources, other than RSM, who is aware of the sources,
-- Sholom
--=====================_204484160==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
<body>
At 06:06 PM 12/2/2008, Joshua Meisner wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">2008/12/1 Noah Witty
<<a href="mailto:nwitty@optonline.net">nwitty@optonline.net</a>><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl><br>
<dd><pre>replaces the segol
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font></blockquote>
<dd>What's your source? Also, how would one know that the it is a segol
that the shalsheles is replacing? I think shalsheles is followed each
time by a pesik (vertical line), which is not the case with a
segol.<br><br>
</dl><br>
I don't know what sort of primary source would have this information, but
I've seen this idea mentioned in a number of secondary sources. The
line following the shalsheles may not be a p'sik (I've also been told
such about the line following a munach l'garmeih); the presence of a
p'sik, at any rate, is often (usually?) to separate between words that
could be read in a heretical manner (e.g., Ya'eir HaShem / panav eilecha
opposes the potential reading of that places the Sheim as an object with
an implied subject, rather than as the Subject), and is then unrelated to
the grammatical structure of the passuk.</blockquote><br>
FWIW, I have a vague recollection of R Seth Mandel mentioning that one of
the Tosafists, perhaps it was Rabbeinu Tam?, wrote about the rules of
trope, which are mechanical/algorithmic, as described in this
thread. (And I also specifically remember RSM mentioning that
there's a "rule" that a segol can not be the first mark of a
pasuk, and the four times it's needed in the first word, it's replaced by
a shalsheles).<br><br>
So, no sources, other than RSM, who is aware of the sources,<br><br>
-- Sholom<br><br>
</body>
</html>
--=====================_204484160==.ALT--
Re: <<may not be a p'sik (I've also been told such about the line following a munach l'garmeih>>
Without the pasek of the legarmei it would not be a legarmei but an ordiinary munach, ilui or karbolta.
Just as two symbols are used in ta'amei emet to indicate a single ta'am, so the legarmei is indicated by two symbols to identify it as different from the other t'amim that use the inverse L, munach symbol.
The pasek's integration into the legarmei symbol might be justification for the comment that it is not officially a pasek.
: So, no sources, other than RSM, who is aware of the sources,
Given the amount of news coming out of the meat industry lately, who is
reopening, who is branching out into beef, etc... it's quite likely RSM
will be unable to contribute to this discussion.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Definitely the paseq-like line after a munach-legarmei or a shalshelet
gedola in taamei emet is not a paseq. A paseq can only occur after a
meshareit (conjunct trop) and the legarmei and shalshelet are mafsikim
(disjunct trop).
This is because the paseq indicates a weaker pause even than the weakest
mafsik.
There would be, therefore, no impact were the pasek to be after a mafsik.
Source:
Wolf Heidenheim Mishpatei HaTeamim zayin amud bet: Lo nimna lo im
haTeamim(hamafsikim) velo in hameshartim
Leah Widawski (Now Dr. Leah Himmelfarb who teaches in Bar Ilan and
specializes in Messora and Taamei HaMikra) wrote the authoritative text on
the paseq so far - a 400 page doctorate on the paseq (Bar Ilan 1990).
She gives 3 reasons on page 2 to support Heidenheim who claims that the
paseq is not a ta'am:
1) the paseq has no musical value like all other teamim
2) the paseq comes after a word while the teamin usually are above or below
the word, nearly always above or below the first letter of the accented
syllable of the word
3) The rules regarding application of the paseq are not absolute whereas
the teamim generally have absolute rules
(for example: the tipcha is the last disjunct before sof pasuq; if 2
zekaifim appear in one tzela, the first is the stronger and the second
divides the words following the first zakef. ) Rules for occurances of
paseq are formulated "often" "sometimes" "frequently" "usually" but never
"always". I guess the exception would be my statement above: a pasek never
follows a ta'am mafsik! This is not a rule when paseq does occur, but a
definition of when in _can_ possibly occur. So Himmelfarb is accurate that
the rules regarding the application of paseq are not absolute.
Breuers book on Ttaamei HaMikra has a whole chapter on paseq. In English
see Wickes book (reprinted by Ktav) that I quoted in my last post.
Previous post:
Without the pasek of the legarmei it would not be a legarmei
but an ordiinary munach, ilui or karbolta.
Just as two symbols are used in ta'amei emet to indicate a
single ta'am, so the legarmei is indicated by two symbols to
identify it as different from the other t'amim that use the
inverse L, munach symbol.
The pasek's integration into the legarmei symbol might be
justification for the comment that it is not officially a
pasek.
Primary sources and non-absolute paseq rules
In my post a few minutes ago I quoted Widawski-Himmelfarb who opined that
the rules for paseq are not absolute, and I tried to explain how that is in
contradistinction to the rules for teamim.
Support for this position may be found in the writings of Eliyahu Bachur,
author of Massoret HaMassoret who says in Chapter heh - (my translation) I
found in the writing of Ben Asher the reasons for the occurances of paseq
but I abstained from writing them (mana'ti lekotvam) because I discovered
that many many of [ the occurances of paseq] don't fall into one of these
five rules. (harbeh harbeh she-ainam nichnasim be-echad me-hameshet
ha-klalim ha-hem)
Dikdukei HaTeamim of Ben Asher (dated to around 915) is the primary source
of all primary sources for rules of teamim. The paseq rules he gives (Dotan
edition of Dikdukei Ha Teamim p 28) are poetic, cryptic and not all too
clear (to me) without the its mefarshim-medakdekim who explain what they
mean. But even R Eliyahu Bachur says the that the rules are not absolute or
comprehensive.
I thought I sent this post at the beginning of the Shalshelet discussion but I think it went only to the questioner and not to the list. If it reached the list I appologize for the duplication.
Dov
Does anyone else on the list read according to Sephardic or Mizrahi minhagh?
I'd like to hear from others on this topic.
We consider paseq a ta`am and it is included in that list at the front of
tiqqunim to help you learn the ta`amim. It consistently changes the
preceeding ta`am, whether or not that is munah. We have no legarmeh.
(Ashkenazim have no trei-qadmin.)
With that said, I recognize that the nusah of Baghdadh is probably not
consistent with Ben-Asher. I presume that the Tiberian ta`amim and the
indigenous Babylonian ta`amim were consolidated to create what became the
current nusah.
Hayyim
Disclaimer I did not read the entire thread, so forigve me if this retraces
some territory.
I was taught that the Shalsheles replaces a zarka segol when there is only
ONE word.
Illustrations:
Take Parasha Vo'eiara. Vayomer Moshe has a zarka segol at the beginning of
the passuk. As a matter of fact, the Zarka segol MSUT precede the esnachta.
In these short zarko segols combinaiotns, there is a verb and subject.
All 4 verbs in the Torah have NO subejct. Due to the lack of a Subject the
Verbs therefore cannot take a lone segol and a Shalsheles is used instead.
That is how I was taught.
I hope this helps.