Volume 24 Number 34
Produced: Thu Jun 6 8:45:01 1996
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
A helpful Technique for Difficult Verses
[Russell Hendel]
Davening Mistakes
[Jerrold Landau]
Laining/Tikkunim
[Shimon Lebowitz]
Leyning and Davening
[Ira Y Rabin]
Sha-atah (2)
[Jerry B. Altzman, Micha Berger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 22:22:46 -0400
Subject: A helpful Technique for Difficult Verses
I am responding to [Berger, 24.26] who cites a difficult verse from
davening. Very often difficult verses with dangling phrases can be
explained using the literary technique know as apposition.
I use Gen 1:29,30 as an example. And God said: Behold I give to (1) you, (a)
all grass on the ground, (b) all trees bearing fruit---(I give) to you to eat.
(2) (And I also give the (a) grass and (b) trees)) to (2) wild animals,
(3) birds,
(4) insects...The verses appear difficult because of all the dangling
phrases (the same problem raised by Berger).
We can solve the problem by distinguishing what is INTENDED to be said,
what is ACTUALLY said and how the TRANSITION from actual to intended is
accomplished.
INTENDED: God gives to the following: (1) people, (2) wild animals, (3)
birds, (4) and insects...God gives to those 4 groups the following: (a)
grass and (b) trees.
ACTUAL: God gives to you grass and trees to you he gives. And to the
wild animals and birds...
TRANSITIONAL PRINCIPLE: The principle of apposition (I can't find a
better term) simply states that compound sentence parts (subjects,
objects, indirect objects, predicates) can be dealt with by singling out
only one of the compound set initially (God gives to you --#(1)) and
"throwing in" the remainder (#2,3,4 wild animals, birds, and insects)
afterwards. It is this "throwing in" which sometimes confuses the
reader (see Rashi on these posookim). This principle is very helpful in
many cases.
Quite simply then I would say that the intended sentence in Kedusha is
that: Then in a VOICE they make heard a voice. The word VOICE is then
developed by apposition with two sets of adjective pairs (a compound
sentence part): VOICE that is roaring and big; VOICE that is majestic
and strong. True you can read the verse as having 4 adjectives but it is
permissable to read it as two sets of adjective pairs and it is equally
permissable to sing it this way.
For those interested in applications of this principle try counting the
number oftimes it can be used in Pesokay Dezimra.
Russell Hendel, rhendel @ mcs . drexel . edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <landau@...> (Jerrold Landau)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 09:30:20 EDT
Subject: Davening Mistakes
Many members of this list have been posting their 'favourite' chazzanus
mistakes, so I will add mine as well. Some of the most problematic
changes in meaning occur when the chazzan is accompanied by a choir.
For example, in Hineni, before Mussaf on the Yamin Noraim, the chazzan
says 'na al tafshiem bechatotai' please do not blame the congregation
for my sins. The choir, as is often done, repeats the last few words of
the phrase. They blurt out 'tafshiem bechatotai' blame them for my
sins.
Never heard this in practice, thank G-d, but not at all inconceivable.
Jerrold Landau
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <lebowitz@...>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:52:58 +0300
Subject: Laining/Tikkunim
i have been itching to join in this thread, so i have several comments
here, and i hope it doesnt seem overly disjointed. i am not a good
writer. ;-)
<YitzW@...> (Yitz Weiss) wrote:
> My favorite tikkun is the "Tikkun
> LaKorim" put out by Mishor in Bnei Brak. It has an incredibly clear
> printing.
i would love to agree, as i also have that one (and so does my son), but
unfortunately it seems to not be available any more. i looked for it,
when i noticed the binding on my copy going, and they have replaced the
beautiful font (NOT a real picture of a sefer torah) with a strange (to
my eye) ktav, reminiscent of sefardi ktav, but different...
it also has mistakes, btw... most of which were corrected in their
second edition. (which still had that font) and thank you to the person
who mentioned the ktav mistake in vayakhel, i only knew the one in
noach.
i love the VERY clear font in the original mishor editions! also the
exact parallel of chumash/tikun columns is a tremendous convenience when
studying. the ktav makes me spend seconds (which seem LONG) just
'looking for the place'.
i also own the koren, but was very sorry i bought it. the tikun side on
it is EXACTLY the chumash side, with all vowels, trop, and punctuation
erased. so it has words not to the margin, if the chumash side had a
makaf (hyphen connecting words), it has bigger spaces between verses
than between letters, and many other 'visual cues'. i find this
definitely counter-productive, and have given up trying to really learn
from it. :-(
i usually study from mishor, then 'check myself' by reading from a
standard koren tanach, to see if what i 'know' differs from what i see.
and sometimes i go back and read from ktav too, just to have a different
column setup. as i mentioned, i dont like relying on visual cues,
especially as our shul has a sefer which does NOT follow the 'vavei
ha-amudim' custom.
i am also glad mishor it has the megillot, i have learnt all but eicha
from it.
on the subject of brachot for megilla, i know that singing the opening
haftorah bracha is what 'gets me into gear' for that set of trop, so i
wrote my own for the megillot too. i am NOT a talmid of r. perlman, but
i try ;-)
(i am afraid my proportional font is gonna kill this line:)
B. A. H' E. M. H. A. K. B. V. al-mikra megilla
mah pash katon tip merch etnach mah pash katon tip merch sof
B. A. H' E. M. H. shehecheyanu vekiyemanu,
mah pash katon tip merch etnach pash katon
vehigi'anu lazman-hazeh.
tipcha sof
Russell Hendel, rhendel @ mcs . drexel . edu mentioned the tlisha
ketana, as a liason. this is very obvious to anyone who is careful with
degaishim, as we consistently see that a tlisha *ketana* can lose us the
dagesh katan of a following word's leading 'beged kefet'. the classic
one i remember is: eilecha (t.k.) fara-aduma (kadma veazla). (how it
grates on my ears to hear a baal-kriah stop after eilecha, and then
start a syllable with a feh! :-( ).
anyone with a feel for a dagesh katan immediately senses, that only by
*connecting* the final kamatz of eilecha (with a pseudo kamatz-heh
ending) to the beginning of 'para', would the dagesh be lost. there are
innumerable examples of this. a few minutes of turning pages came up
with these:
breishit 19:17, 29:13, 47:15
shemot 14:10,36:1
i am sorry to have to correct the poster who said: Zakef are
common...see in this weeks past parshah (Nasoh) "Veamar el haishah
(pashtah #1) im los shachav ish (pashtah #2) othach (zakef)".
veamar (mahpach) el-ha'isha(pashta) im-lo(kadma)
shachav(mercha) ish(pashta)...
shalom,
shimon
Shimon Lebowitz Bitnet: LEBOWITZ@HUJIVMS
VM System Programmer internet: <lebowitz@...>
Israel Police National HQ. IBMMAIL: I1060211
Jerusalem, Israel phone: +972 2 309-877 fax: 309-308
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <irabin@...> (Ira Y Rabin)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 09:18:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Leyning and Davening
This is in regard to the ongoing leyning and davening
discussion. There have been so many posts I don't remember who said
what, but I think some of the questions and statements were directed at
my posts so I will try to answer them.
Leyning: A recent post suggested that some troupe mistakes should be
corrected if they obviously change the meaning (ie- no, do work.). yet
if we only leave it up to "well is it obvious?" then different things
would be corrected in differnt places depending on the knowledge level
of the gabbai. Just to use the "lo sa'aseh melacha" case- if the mercha
and tipcha are switched, then the sa'aseh would become a "ta'aseh."
This is an important change. Think if this didn't overtly change the
meaning- we wouldn't correct it. the point? Either you must correct all
troupe mistakes or none of them, b/c troupe does affect meaning, obvious
or subtle. (although most places don't correct a nikkud mistake like a
"tah' or a "sah."
Davening: There is a great difference between chazzanus and say
something like "d'vakus" ( i don't mean to attack d'vakus- it's just an
example- they make some great music, just in my opinion- not for
davening).
1) Some of the great chazzanim like Y. Rosenblatt, Ganschov,
Kutzivetzky etc... Dedicated their lives to the study of davening and
music. Today's modern groups are writing their music for entertainment
purposes and to make money. NOT for davening. Avraham Fried once
admitted to a friend of mine that what he does isn't for davening.
2) today's songs when put to davening, mess up accents, and
phrasing. People try to put words to music, whereas high quality
chazzanus puts music to the words. (IOW- the words are the primary
concern)
3) nusach to me is a unifying phenomenoen. It is so wonderful that I
can walk into any ashkenazi shul almost anywhere and from nusach know
what day it is. Nusach is an integral part of our mesorah. Popular
songs have turned davening into a show, and actually, I think, wrecks
kavanah. Ever stand there in kedushah saying to yourself "Hmm, what song
is this?" great kavanah.
4) where do you draw the line? what music will we allow? I heard
someone say once that a jewish composer is ok. well in that case,
Mendelsohn and Aaron copeland are just as appropriate. In realtiy if you
play out some music from "phantom of the opera" "joseph" or other
musicals you will see some similar patterns to nusach modes.
5) why will it stop at davening? Maybe one year at aychah, instead of
trope someone wil start singing the pasuk "hasheevaynu.." Someone may
find troupe in general "boring" and start singing megillas, or even the
torah. No, nusach won't make us all stand up, clap, cheer and dance
around, but perhaps that sort of activitiy is more for a Rangers/Flyers
game. True- ivdu es hashem b'simcha- but let's also remember that we
call this avodah "avodah she'balev."
Respectfully submitted,
Ira Rabin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jerry B. Altzman <jbaltz@...>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 23:43:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Sha-atah
> On Tue, 04 Jun 1996 08:41:30 EDT, Micha Berger wrote:
> While we're on the topic of pronunciation in davening, about a year ago
> I noticed that the words to modim (2nd to last brachah of the Amidah)
> begin "Modim anachnu lach sha'atah - we acknowledge to You that The
> You..." I have been saying "she'atah - that you (without the the)" all
> these years. Grammatically, she'atah makes more sense (I think). In
> fact, in my Aleppo siddur it says "she'atah". But the kamatz (a as in
> father?) appears in every other siddur I've checked.
"She'atah" (with a seghol under the shin) appears in my nusach eidut hamizrach
siddurim (Shaarei Zion and Sukkath David).
> Similarly, in the other places the word is used, for example, Shabbos
> Mincha "... sha'atah rotzeh bah", with a kamatz in all the siddurim I
> checked, accept the "Kol Yaakov Nusach Aram Tzovah", the Aleppo siddur.
It appears in like the Aleppo siddur in other E"M siddurim I use as
well.
> The origin of this gramattic oddity appears to be in Shoftim (Judges),
> where Gidon addresses a mal'ach (angel) as "sha'atah". Perhaps the
> implied "hei hayehidiy'ah" (loosely: definite article) is a show of
> respect. Today it is often considered repectful not to call an Adam
> Godol (a "Great Man") by the word "you" at all. OTOH, the same brachah
> from Shabbos Minchah opens "Atah Echad" (You are one), not "HaAtah
> Echad" (The You are one). In fact HaAtoh isn't anywhere in Tanach or the
> siddur.
Could it be simply that a typographical error has crept in? I mean,
if you have a little smudge of ink in the midst of a seghol, you get a
kamatz. (I find this particular problem in many poorly-printed siddurim,
which seem to be most of the older ones.) This could be compounded by
the fact that when said quickly, the "eh" sound of the seghol might be
combined with the "ah" sound of the patach under the following alef?
Or am I being an apikores [heretic] again?
//jbaltz
jerry b. altzman Entropy just isn't what it used to be +1 212 650 5617
<jbaltz@...> jbaltz@scisun.sci.ccny.cuny.edu KE3ML
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <aishdas@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 07:19:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Sha-atah
I observed in that in Ashkenazi (Nusachei Ashkenaz, Chassidic
"Sephard", and Chabad's "Ari") siddurim the word is consistantly
spelled sha'atah, with a kamatz, instead of she'atah.
Jerry Altzman comments:
> Could it be simply that a typographical error has crept in? I mean,
> if you have a little smudge of ink in the midst of a seghol, you get a
> kamatz. (I find this particular problem in many poorly-printed siddurim,
> which seem to be most of the older ones.) This could be compounded by
> the fact that when said quickly, the "eh" sound of the seghol might be
> combined with the "ah" sound of the patach under the following alef?
I would agree if it were not found consitently, in Modim, in the
middle bracha of Shabbas Mincha Amidah, the tephillot of Geshem
and Tal (rain and dew - sha'atah hu mashiv haruach umorid
hageshem/hatal), and elsewhere.
Also, as I said after checking my concordance, sha'atah shows up
in Shoftim (Judges). This is the only time in Tanach that the word
is used with either vowelization.
I'm curious if Sephardi minhag has a segol in Shoftim as well.
If not, it may be as I originally assumed: that Sephardim are
following the laws of grammar, which Ashkenazim intentionally break
to follow the example in Shoftim.
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3476 days!
<AishDas@...> (16-Oct-86 - 31-May-96)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
<a href=http://haven.ios.com/~aishdas>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 24 Issue 34
