[Mesorah] Shalsheleth

[Hayyim Obadyah]

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


-----Original Message-----
From: mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of
dovb at netvision.net.il
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 5:48 PM
To: mesorah at aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Shalsheleth

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:
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Shalsheleth
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.

_______________________________________________
Mesorah mailing list
Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - MicrosoftR Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange


_______________________________________________
Mesorah mailing list
Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081206/87843cf8/attachment-0010.htm>