[Mesorah] FW: [somewhat off-topic] ir Tziyon t'male

[Mandel, Seth]

I am short on time, just 3 comments:

1)      Since when can anyone take the vocalization of siddurim on z’miros as reflecting what is correct?  As discussed many times, various printers, rabbis, and ignoramuses have “corrected” siddurim in the nusach of t’fillo, which, at least, had an ancient masorah from all the mss.  However, the z’miros are not in the old mss. and start appearing in siddurim relatively recently.  As such, their vocalization reflects the views of the printer and not of some masorah.  Just look at how they corrupted Koh Ribbon.

2)      Even the printers, rabbis, and ignoramuses who spent time correcting the nusach usually ignored z’miros and payyet.  Ex.: they corrected all the examples in the nusach that ended with –akh to read –ekha, like ittakh to itt’kha, but they didn’t touch the slichos “l’ma‘an britakh.”  So you do not know whose view is reflected in z’miros.

3)      Those two were general k’vetching suitable for curmudgeons.  However, to the point: the verb m-l-’ becomes very complicated even in the T’NaKh.  See Ps. 72:19.  I would bet that the first reaction of most people, including the recondite denizens of Mesorah, would be to correct it to read “viymalle’ k’vodo et kol ha’aretz.”  Since HaZa’L established the nusach of t’filla based on myriad quotes from the T’NaKh, even hidden in places where most people don’t recognize them, it is conceivable that whoever composed the z’mira did the same.  Give me rules that cover all cases of m-l-’ in the T’NaKh and then we can talk about z’mirot.  And even then personally I would spend my time doing other things (the Aramaic z’mirot in the Diwan, anyone?).
Of course, I do not expect my comments to be part of the general thread.  I felt the need to say something because the discussion was so seriously high-minded.  One should treat grammar, unlike the Masorah of theT’NaKh, with a modicum of levity.

Rabbi Seth Mandel


-----Original Message-----
From: mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org [mailto:mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hamm
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 4:01 PM
To: mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] [somewhat off-topic] ir Tziyon t'male



On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Michael Hamm <msh210 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The song "Tzur Mishelo" contains the line "yibane hamikdash ir Tziyon

> t'male".  That's the wording in every bentscher I'm familiar with, and

> in R' Yaakov Emden's sidur.  But it seems so unpoetic to have the

> first half, "yibane", in nif'al (and passive/intransitive) and the

> second, "t'male", in piel (and active/transitive), when they could

> easily be balanced: "yibane hamikdash ir Tziyon timale" with both in

> nif'al (and passive/intransitive, as in "sheroshi nimla tal" in Shir

> Hashirim).  Does anyone know of sources that have "timale" (nif'al),

> or of a reason it's "t'male" (piel)?



R'Hayyim Obadyah responded on-list with a citation to a sidur with

"timale", and I thank him, but no one explained why, in most sidurim,

it switches binyan midstream.  So I've now asked the question also at

<URL:http://mi.yodeya.com/q/11271/170>, hoping someone there can

answer it.  If anyone on this list now knows an answer, he can post it

there for wider readership; likewise, if any of you wants to see what

others might answer, you can try that URL.



Kol tuv,



Menashe Hamm

_______________________________________________

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/20111115/6f38d11d/attachment-0004.htm>