tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post6569201609291210700..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Darshening pesiks in parashat Toledotjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-7614044475202236412011-11-25T15:37:07.999-05:002011-11-25T15:37:07.999-05:00"There is no such thing as a legarmeh that ca..."There is no such thing as a legarmeh that cannot be replaced by a geresh without any loss of pausal value."<br /><br />do you typically find repetitions of geresh? it would (often) be the earlier variation of geresh vs. telisha which will trigger the munach legarmeh in the intervening trup.<br /><br />"There is no "word-count" rule or "word-syllable" rule that triggers legarmeh instead of another expected trup"<br />There is. Short (one-syllable) intervening words will commonly trigger legarmeh rather than geresh, though this is not exclusive.<br /><br />I agree we won't find parallels to every aspect, but (without research) I suspect that there are unique parculiarities to the system throughout.<br /><br />"The peshat level can simply be musical variation."<br />Right. So I like to explicitly SAY this.<br /><br />"Where do you find pashta transformed into a revia to avoid repitition? Revia into pashta happens all the time. Don't recall the converse."<br />Yes. Sorry, I misspoke.<br /><br />"Again I will emphasize that I don't think our points of view are that far away from each other. And it's nice to have a place to discuss these details, so thank you."<br />Indeed.<br /><br />Have a great shabbos.<br />--Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-35284758229253621432011-11-25T15:05:28.549-05:002011-11-25T15:05:28.549-05:00"had they not been interested in musical vari..."had they not been interested in musical variation, they would not have introduced these variant trups at different lengths."<br /><br />Or, perhaps they were interested not in musical variation, but in drashot.<br />There is no question that there is a musical aspect to trup. But there might also be a drasha aspect, when a trup occurs where it isn't necessary, or when another trup could have been used _within our system of rules_.<br /><br />"Legarmeih also occurs at a specific distance etc."<br /><br />Red herring. Of course there are rules for where and when one finds a legarmeh; you're not going to have a legarmeh immediately before an etnachta, for example. That isn't the point. There is no such thing as a legarmeh that cannot be replaced by a geresh without any loss of pausal value. (And even if you do find a few, we can darshen the ones that are not.) There is no "word-count" rule or "word-syllable" rule that triggers legarmeh instead of another expected trup, as we find with yetiv vs. pashta, for example. Your own source, Wickes, admits to this, and can only find musical variation as the reason for its occurence. And even he agrees, with respect to unusual occurences such as Mochlat, that there might be something deeper.<br />We can agree that this may not be the "correct" drasha on Mochalat, but it seems obvious that the Masoretes wanted to tell us something.<br /><br />"Great that they darshen this, but how shall we explain it on a peshat level?"<br /><br />The peshat level can simply be musical variation.<br /><br />I agree that trup are frequently misused for drashot, and you hit the nail on the head when you say that often people think "tevir means X, and yetiv means Y". It's a pet peeve of mine as well. For example, your comments on Shalshelet sit better with me because there we have clear rules about where a shalshelet is found - so to darshen that trup is more of a stretch. I'm just not as harsh on this kind of drasha with respect to legarmeh, for the reasons I've elaborated... and despite the author's (lack of) knowledge on the matter, we can still salvage the drasha. I would say the same for the GRA's drashot on trup; despite the fact that they aren't muchrach, there is still some drashetic (is that a word?) value.<br /><br />Where do you find pashta transformed into a revia to avoid repitition? Revia into pashta happens all the time. Don't recall the converse.<br /><br />Again I will emphasize that I don't think our points of view are that far away from each other. And it's nice to have a place to discuss these details, so thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-12042116675114165792011-11-25T13:41:03.728-05:002011-11-25T13:41:03.728-05:00hey, you asked for examples. had they not been int...hey, you asked for examples. had they not been interested in musical variation, they would not have introduced these variant trups at different lengths.<br /><br />(I can also think of pashtas *transformed* to revii to avoid repetition.)<br /><br />at specific intermediate levels, one can have EITHER a tipcha or a zakef. IIRC, this is a matter of probability, rather than a hard-and-fast rule.<br /><br />Legarmeih also occurs at a specific distance. Thus, where on the first word before revii (parallel to tipcha as first word before etnachta or silluq) you get a geresh. Where on the second word before revii (parallel to tipcha alternating with zakef before etnachta or silluq) you still get a geresh, EXCEPT where there are only three words in the clause, where Legarmeih can alternate, especially where there are small words in between. Where there are more words (four or more), we no longer get Legarmeih. Rather, it is either Geresh (with an intervening legarmeih for minor dichotomies, thus for the "musical variation" purpose of not repeating geresh, or telisha gedola with a geresh to mark the minor dichotomy.<br /><br />There are thus rules, involving surrounding trup at the same level, and involving word-counts, which triggers munach legarmeih.<br /><br />Even if it all IS entirely legitimate within the realm of derash, as you know, I like to analyze peshat alongside derash. Great that they darshen this, but how shall we explain it on a peshat level?<br /><br />In the realm of darshening trup, though, my sense is that people engaged in it have developed a theory that this is the primary meaning of the trup, and that it is *peshat* in the trup. Thus, tevir always means X, and yetiv always means Y. And they say this because of a lack of awareness of a competing theory, and will then use it not to bolster existing derash, but to form a new commentary of their own making.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-5786277219382876532011-11-25T12:24:59.583-05:002011-11-25T12:24:59.583-05:00None of those are good examples. We're not ju...None of those are good examples. We're not just talking about trup that have the same pausal value. I said "within our system of trup" -- within our system of rules, there are specific reasons, based on syllable count or other factors, why certain trup are replaced with other trup.<br />For example, one cannot just replace every yetiv with a pashta. The yetiv comes under specific circumstances, namely when it appears on the first syllable of the word. Likewise zakef katon, zakef gadol and metiga (kadma katon) come under specific circumstances based on syllable count, if the word can take a gaaya, and whether there is a prior mesharet. So you can't just "make everything" a zakef gadol. Shalshelet replaces segol under specific circumstances. Kadma and munach can replace each other based on whether the accent comes on the first letter of the word. Mahpach vs. mercha before pashta come under specific circumstances. Mercha vs. darga before tevir come under specific circumstances. Pashta replaces revia under speciufic circumstances. And so on. (And our system does not allow for repititions of tipcha.) That's not under dispute.<br /><br />The point is, legarmeh has no technical "reason" for being there; it can always be replaced by a form of geresh (if before revia) or telisha (if before geresh, as in Parashat Toldot). Wickes himself just chalks it up to musical variation. Others may want to see a drasha every time a legarmeh appears. Elu v'Elu. These drashot aren't my cup of tea either, but it is different that just darshening every tipcha.<br /><br />The only other examples I can think of are m'aylah, which doesn't seem to be necessary from a rules standpoint, and yerach ben yomo/karnei farah. And if one were to darshen those occurences as well, I think that is legitimate within the realm of drash.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-92009905886861810302011-11-25T10:08:15.325-05:002011-11-25T10:08:15.325-05:00ah. thanks. i corrected the "semantic" t...ah. thanks. i corrected the "semantic" typo.<br /><br />"is there another symbol that could be replaced within our system of trup with no loss of pausal value"<br />Sure. Without even going to those Wickes mentions as musical variation: tipcha, zakef katon, zakef-gadol, kadma-katon, segolta, and shalsheles all are the same level of pausal value. Get rid of kadma-katon and zakef-katon and make everything a zakef gadol. Or make <b>all of the above</b> into a tipcha, no matter the distance from the etnachta, allowing tipcha to repeat, just as we presently allow zakef to repeat.<br /><br />For one example (of others) of something Wickes labels musical variation, see at the top of page 77, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=BssOAAAAYAAJ&dq=wickes%20cantillation&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-38170179762287573762011-11-25T09:46:47.930-05:002011-11-25T09:46:47.930-05:001) I weas pointing out a typo: "for semantic ...1) I weas pointing out a typo: "for semantic rather than semantic purposes". I know what you were getting at.<br /><br />2) My point is not to defend "the" Bircas Avraham per se. I have no idea who he is either. <br />Of course this is not a pesik, and he is mistaken in that assumption. I say this in my first post. I'm saying that legarmeh can be darshened, in a way that other trup cannot, because it is not "necessary" within the rules of trup, as other trup are.<br /><br />3) Not an ad hominem. Wickes was clearly superior in his understanding of the system of trup. But he was in no position to make drashot, which by definition veer away from the technical. There is no way he would account for a mystical interpretation, for example. And his suggestion about musical variation is only a guess. There is no evidence of that. <br /><br />4) "In virtually every instance of legarmeh, a different mafsiq could have been used."<br />This is true for other instances of musical variation, if I am not mistaken. <br /><br />I disagree on this point. Please demonstrate. We are not talking about a trup out of place, such as an etnachta where you wouldn't expect it (Vayihi Acharei Hamagefa etc.)...is there another symbol that could be replaced within our system of trup with no loss of pausal value? <br /><br />At the end of the day, we don't really disagree on the value of this drasha. Yes, you did present both sides. One could easily take the other side of most drashot. Just saying that despite the Bircas Avrahams (seeming) ignorance of what this line is, it still has value as a drasha.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-54072749524080957962011-11-25T00:48:33.296-05:002011-11-25T00:48:33.296-05:00"Not sure what you mean here"
In other ..."Not sure what you mean here"<br /><br />In other words, regular trup is typically motivated by syntactic concerns. It knocks off verb, noun, and prepositional phrases at the beginning and end of clauses, where there are still three words in the clause and we have not exhausted the depth of the trup symbols.<br /><br />Psik comes on top of that, and for semantic reasons, such as to distance a Divine Name, or bring further emphasis (paseq emphaticum), or to divide between two words that are to be distinguished as to sense (distinctivum). There are other times psik occurs, but regardless, there ARE times where the purpose is semantic rather than musical or syntactic.<br /><br />Yes, in terms of getting technical the Baal HaTurim extends this semantic notion to further distance, and we might well argue on him and his derash. But this was a Rishon, and one extending the notion by a trup symbol which is semantic rather than syntactic. We could get technical about every derash of Chazal or Rishonim as well. If one is extending the derasha, it deserved at the least some sort of note.<br /><br />If you want to make a justification, yes, you can make a justification. But then it is a kasha with a teretz, not something smooth with no difficulties whatsoever. I thought I presented your side in this post.<br /><br />"Wickes, a non-Jew, says this is for musical variation; the Bircas Avraham believes in a deeper meaning."<br />Ad hominem. And I think Wickes made a stronger, more consistent study of trup. Also, who is "the" Bircas Avraham? Honestly, I don't know who R' (?) Avraham Albert is. He certainly is a recent writer, as he refers to e.g. Rav Kanievsky's sefer, Taama deKra.<br /><br />(While I often differ with him, we share many of the same interests. For instance, how trup contributes to meaning, how to understand Tg Yonasan, and establishing the correct girsa in rabbinic texts.)<br /><br />"the Bircas Avraham believes in a deeper meaning."<br />Are you sure? Or is it just that he hasn't studied trup in depth and so honestly does not know the different, saw the Baal HaTurim dashening psik, and innocently darshened other psiks? (Such that it would be like darshening kadmas as though they were pashtas.) Both are possible, but don't leap to attribute your teretz to him and be so confident that that is what is going on.<br /><br />"Your argument from other trup systems is irrelevant."<br />I don't agree. It is not irrelevant. It demonstrates that, on an underlying level, this trup symbol variation does not come BECAUSE we need a psik. (Though I would note that where a psik is due in revii's clause, it will appear as a munach legarmeih. Those are indeed both.) The orthography of trup developed at a later time than the assignment of trup values to different words.<br /><br />"In virtually every instance of legarmeh, a different mafsiq could have been used."<br />This is true for other instances of musical variation, if I am not mistaken. <br /><br />"but those who make drashot would argue"<br />or **could** argue. i am not certain that they all **would**.<br /><br />Anyway, at the end of the day, I don't think I shortchanged the other side. I presented it, though I am not personally persuaded by it, and gave reasons for my disagreement.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-3157082794783935392011-11-24T23:18:35.899-05:002011-11-24T23:18:35.899-05:00"It is not the same as a pesik which occurs o..."It is not the same as a pesik which occurs over and above the ordinary divergence provided by trup, and often appears for semantic rather than semantic purposes."<br /><br />Huh?<br /><br />Not sure what you mean here, but again, I would say that the legarmeh is not just like a tipcha or kadmah.<br />All of those trup are necessary, in the sense that within our sysem of rules, we have precise reasons for every trup occuring where it does. In virtually every instance of legarmeh, a different mafsiq could have been used. Instead, the Masoretes chose to use this particular mafsiq that carries a vertical line, which looks like a pesik and has the same pausal value as a pesik. Wickes, a non-Jew, says this is for musical variation; the Bircas Avraham believes in a deeper meaning. And why musical variation here and not there? Again, within the realm of drashot, it is perfectly fine to darshen this.<br /><br />Your argument from other trup systems is irrelevant. Within this trup system, which has become the only one in practice, the drasha is valid. One could discard every drasha based on trup, or nekudot for that matter, with that argument. Perhaps that's your point, but those who make drashot would argue that the fact that these systems came to be accepted over others is not a matter of historical accident, but contain an element of providence and are an indication that we are to delve deeper.<br /><br />(You yourself acknolwedge this implicitly in other posts on trup. When you argue, for example, against the GRA's darshening of the revia in the first pasuk of "Vayigash", it is on the basis of the fact that the "real" name for the trup is revia and not revii. That's a valid point; but why not take it further and argue that in other trup systems, those names don't exist, so the drasha is not necessary?)<br /><br />This is especially true in this case, where the use of legarmeh is extremely odd and unexpected. It certainly cries out for a drasha. Even Wickes was unwilling to just hide behind musical variation here.<br /><br />Lastly, if you're going to be that technical, then you can't really ever allow for the darshening of pesiks either. From the literature it is clear that a pesik comes after a mesharet in specific cases and for specific technical reasons. (See the excellent chapter in Breuer's Taamei Hamikrah on this.) There are very few cases where we don't know why a pesik is there. In this case, the strong preference is to have a pesik after the Shem HaShem, as you yourself indicate. Yet you admit that the Baal HaTurim does darshen pesiks.<br /><br />Bottom line, no drasha is "necessary". But tearing down drashot isn't necessary either, unless they are made under wrong assumptions or are in error. These drashot of the legarmeh seem to fall well within acceptable standards for drashot.anon2noreply@blogger.com