<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
I believe there are medieval German mss. With the variant reading.
<hr>
<div style="font-size:16px"><b>From:</b> David Cohen via Mesorah [<a href="mailto:mesorah@lists.aishdas.org" target="_blank">mesorah@lists.aishdas.org</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> November 17, 2016 at 8:23:30 AM <br>
<b>To:</b> Mesorah List <br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Mesorah] Te'amim in 5242 Bologna Chumash <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">I've been looking at cases where the assignment of te'amim to a word in many contemporary Chumashim / Tanachim (e.e. Koren, which generally follows R' Wolf Heidenheim's editions) not only differs from the editions edited by R' Mordechai Breuer,
but doesn't even get mentioned in his "HaNusach uMekorotav" (at the beginning of Da'at Mikra for each book of Tanach), meaning that none of the sources he considered authoritative (Leningrad Codex, JNUL 5702, Sassoon 1053, Venice Mikraot Gedolot, and Minchat
Shai, or the lists of differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali) had it that way.
<div><br>
<div>One of the more well-known cases, which has been discussed her before, is the revi'a (as opposed to azla geresh) on "katonti" (Bereshit 32:11). Another one appears in this week's parasha -- a zakef katon (as opposed to revia) on "amarti" (Bereshit 20:11).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Looking around the various old Chumashim / Tanachim on the National Library website (<a href="http://aleph.nli.org.il/nnl/dig/books_bib.html">http://aleph.nli.org.il/nnl/dig/books_bib.html</a>), I found that in both of these cases:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. The vast majority of the pre-Heindenheim chumashim have it the same way as all of R' Breuer's sources.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. In Heidenheim's "Ein HaKorei" (<a href="http://aleph.nli.org.il/nnl/dig/books/bk001277723.html">http://aleph.nli.org.il/nnl/dig/books/bk001277723.html</a>), he cites the Soncino edition of 5248 as his source for doing it differently.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. The te'amim assignment favored by Heidenheim also appears in the Bologna Chumash of 5242 (<a href="http://aleph.nli.org.il/nnl/dig/books/bk001158964.html">http://aleph.nli.org.il/nnl/dig/books/bk001158964.html</a>), which was the first chumash ever
printed with te'amim, and predates the aforementioned Soncino Tanach by 6 years.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>According to <a href="http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=4526">http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=4526</a>, the same printer (Avraham ben Hayim) was involved in both the Bologna and Soncino editions, so perhaps this is
not a surprise. But the question is what manuscripts were used to prepare these printed editions. Does anybody know if there are known manuscripts that have these "variant" te'amim printed in the Bologna and Soncino printings, and propagated (through Heidenheim,
and later Koren) to some of our contemporary Chumashim?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- D.C.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>