Volume 53 Number 27
Produced: Wed Dec 20 6:37:34 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Impostors in hassidic garb
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Katonti/Kotonti (6)
[Orrin Tilevitz, Mark Symons, Emmanuel Ifrah, Russell J Hendel,
Russell J Hendel, Stuart Feldhamer]
Richard Joel (2)
[Ben Katz, Joel Rich]
A silent Minority
[Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:11:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Impostors in hassidic garb
Here is another article pointing out that the impostors who call
themselves "Neturei Karta" are actually no such thing and have been in
cheirem for a long time.
http://www.jewishmediaresources.org/article/1037/
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7637/544/640/SabbaHillel.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Katonti/Kotonti
Emmanuel Ifrah "corrected" Russel Jay Hendel and said that the Leningrad
Codex has simply a geresh rather than an azla geresh. Dr. Hendel is not
mistaken. What Dr. Hendel (and I) call an azla geresh are what
Emmanuel, using sephardic terminology, calls a geresh. What Emmanuel
calls an azla geresh is what we call a "kadma ve-azla".
Emmanuel also asserts that a geresh is a descending note. An
interesting observation; I gather he is referring to sephardi layning
(although I am puzzled how the word "geresh" jibes with a descending
note), but in ashkenazi layning it is a quick ascending note. The
ascending note is consistent with my theory (with which Dr. Hendel in
any event disagrees) that the originator of the revii version (or
perhaps one or more of its perpetuators) thought it was correct because
of how he heard the taam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:49:23 +1100
Subject: Katonti/Kotonti
> Emmanuel Ifrah <emmanuel_ifrah@...> wrote
> Russell Jay Hendel wrote about Hebrew word "Katonti" in Gn32-11: "The
> Leningrad 19b codex is the oldest complete codex of the Bible that we
> have. The Leningrad 19b has an AZLA GERESH."
> I just checked in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (faithful
> rendition of the Leningrad Codex) and the word does not have an azla
> geresh. It has a simple *geresh*.
> This also solves the comment about that being improper to have an
> ascending note like azla on a word which indicates humility. It does
> not indeed. It has a descending note (geresh) that perfectly well
> matches the meaning.
What do you mean by a geresh as distinct from an azla geresh? AFAIK, in
ashkenazi terminology, the note that is a mirror image of a kadma, when
it follows a kadma it's called an azla; when it does not follow a kadma
(either standing alone or following a munach) it's called an azla geresh
- in most ashkenazi leining that I've heard, the melody of both is
similar, some sing the azla geresh as going up more. (only one baal
koreh that I've heard - the late Yoev Kimelman A"H of Melbourne
Australia - had a downward melody for an azla following a kadma). In
sefaradi terminology, they're both called g'rish, and on a Sefaradi
Yerushalmi CD I have (that came with the book Tuv Taam, by the author of
Tikkun Simanim), they both sound very similar (to my ashkenazi ears at
least).
Mark Symons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Emmanuel Ifrah <emmanuel_ifrah@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:42:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Katonti/Kotonti
Azla-Geresh is a "double ta'am" (like darga-tevir) usually on two words
but some times on one word with the first ta'am going up (azla = \ ) and
the second going down (geresh = / ). In this case, the word "katonti"
bears a single ta'am viz. geresh ( / descending sign). Actually, it
seems quite odd to me to name a single ta'am with a double name
"azla-geresh".
What you call "azla-geresh" really is a geresh, and it is called among
ashkenazim "azla-geresh" by extension since the two te'amim usually
follow each other. It is also simply called an "azla" or a "teres". You
can have a look at the Talmudic Encyclopedia, art. Te'amim, in the
Appendix, table A, col. 739-740, where all these names are recorded. In
all Sefaradic te'amim I know (Morrocan, Algerian and Tunisian)
azla-geresh is sung in two symetric parts, the first one ascending and
the second one descending. When the geresh is alone it is sung in a
descending manner. Tunisian cantilation is similar to Yerushalmi, but I
cannot state for sure that it is identical in this instance.
Emmanuel Ifrah
Mark Symons <msymons@...> wrote:
> What do you mean by a geresh as distinct from an azla geresh?
[See rest of posting above]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:16:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Katonti/Kotonti
Emmanuel cites the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia that Gn32-05 has a
geresh not an azla geresh.
Actually one can easily inspect famiscles of the Leningrad 19b. I
personally own a copy of the 1971 famiscle. Here in Baltimore the
Baltimore Hebrew Library has a 1991 famiscle. When I lived in NY I could
inspect the JTS copy. Most major cities (Chicago, Cincinatti, Boston)
have good Jewish libraries which contain the leningrad. Finally Aaron
Dotan a world scholar on the Leningrad has published an ordinary Tanakh
with Leningrad cantillations.
The Leningrad is very clear. The word Katonti has a "dot" on the left
side of the tet and a "vertical upright tag" on the right side of the
tet. The "dot" looks like a revii (and hence the confusion) but
corresponds to the cholam (The "oh" sound). The tag corresponds to an
azla geresh (A Geresh would require two tags or a double tag).
Furthermore the "going up or down" is not uniform in ashkenaz and
sefardic cantillation trope. So the idea of interpreting the trope in
terms of its muscial contours has problems.
Hope this helps
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:06:53 -0500
Subject: Katonti/Kotonti
Orrin wrote to my comment "with one exception the Biblical cantillations
are always grammatical and not used to create inuendoes", that, "there
are possibly many examples such as the occurrences of Shalsheleth."
Actually this is a good question and illustrates nicely the controversy
here: I claim that The Shalsheleth is governed by PURELY GRAMMATICAL
RULES. The Shalsheleth is a SEGOL that occurs on one word (With no need
for a preceding Zarkah). The rules of Segol are not given explicitly by
the Rishonim but on my own I have formulated that one determinant of the
Shalsheleth is a 3 clause sentence (See Nu26 for examples---the tribes
with 3 subtribes have a segol those with two do not). In such a case the
Shalsheleth functions like the English colon.
Here is a good example. Eliezer when praying for success with finding
Isaac a wife states "And he said: a) God you are the Lord of my master
Abraham b) Please give me good accidents today c) Act gracefully with my
master Abraham." Here the introductory phrase "And he said" is a colon
phrase and hence requires a Segol. Since the Segol is on one Hebrew word
it transforms into a Shalsheleth.
My point here is that there is no other contributory reason for the
shalsheleth; the cantillation is required by grammar and has nothing to
do with the situation.
Similar points can be made for other exegesii on cantillations except for
the one exception I mentioned
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Feldhamer <Stuart.Feldhamer@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:13:49 -0500
Subject: RE: Katonti/Kotonti
What exactly is a "simple geresh"?
Stuart
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:11:17 -0600
Subject: Re: Richard Joel
>From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
> Dr. Joel Roth is doing a great job re-invigorating the Modern
>Orthodox side of YU, bringing in people like Rabbi Dr JJ Scachter, Marc
>Gottlieb ...
Et chatai ani mazkir hayom
I of course (as has been pointed out to me privately) meant Dr.
Richard Joel.
I guess I had the C movement on the brain after their terible decision
of the last week (and the names are similar)
a freilichin hanukah to all
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 08:52:30 -0500
Subject: Richard Joel
> Dr. Joel Roth is doing a great job re-invigorating the Modern
> Orthodox side of YU, bringing in people like Rabbi Dr JJ Scachter, Marc
> Gottlieb ..
Oy is that Freudian????? (I presume you meant Dr.(honorary) Richard Joel
not Dr. Joel Roth of JTS although maybe his recent resignation from the
JTS related halacha commission will help YU indirectly?
KT
Joel Rich
BTW IMHO Dr. Joel needs also to concern himself with the central core of
the beit medrash - admittedly a difficult balancing act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:58:08 -0500
Subject: A silent Minority
Many of you will recall the term "Silent Majority"
Given the demographics of some of the more outspoken groups within our
(in the US and elsewhere - everywhere but Israel) Minority -- many of us
might consider ourselves a majority within that minority.
To clarify: Jews are a minority. Torah observant Jews are a smaller
minority, still. But such specific groups (and they will all be
uncomfortable finding themselves juxtapositioned in this list) such as
Neturai Karta, Lubavich, Satmar are themselves a minority within a
minority .... The Majority of Torah observant Jews are not members and
are not affiliated with any one of these specific groups.
Hence the problem.
When my neighbor says something that I don't agree with -- fine, that's
his / her right. When he gets in the media and he dares claim or
insinuate that he speaks for "all Jews" -- I find this problematic. Let
me throw some fuel into the fire with specifics.
Nuterai Karta -- Some people so identified are certainly adept at
getting publicity doing things and supporting ideas that (I believe)
most of us a (strongly) opposed to. But they're in the newspapers and
radio and TV -- sort of the man bites dog phenomenum.
But what of more benign events.
The outdoor (mall?) landscape is dotted with large menorahs. To an
outside observer it might seem that all Jews are Lubavich. That
menorahs are straight not curved, etc. Years ago during the Regan
administration, I was happy to see a menorah lit in the whitehouse --
but I would have been happier to see one that was more universal in
shape -- and more importantly, I would have been happy to drop an
adjective. Not frum Lubavich Jew lighting, but a frum Jew or simply a
Jew. Was this stealing the limelight -- you bet it was! And certain
groups (I'm not pointing only at Lubavich) specialize in doing so --
perhaps as part of their kiruv and perhaps as part of their ego.
Most recently a tempest in a teapot re: trees at the Seattle airport.
Personally, I object to crosses in public places, but I like trees and
lights, etc. It reminds me that there are many devoutly religious
people in this great country (U.S.A.) -- OK a 2 month shopping season is
not an indicator of religion.
The key word in the previous paragraph is "personally" -- I speak for
myself, only. Others would do well make it clear that regardless of
their soapbox they, too, speak only for themselves or for the limited
group.
Finally, the question -- how should a "silent majority" (within a
minority) respond to events of this nature?
A freilechen Chanukah,
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 53 Issue 27
